View Full Version : Abortion, yes or no
King of Atlantis
07-10-2005, 08:58
Im sure this has already been debated, but oh well.
So, do you belive legalizing abortion is a good or bad idea.
Productivity
07-10-2005, 09:22
At what freaking stage? Turning abortion into a yes or no issue has created the entire quagmire that is the US abortion laws.
I support the right to first trimester abortions. Second trimester I probably don't. Third trimester I certainly don't. Unless there rae health reasons.
So what do I vote?
King Henry V
07-10-2005, 09:35
Abortion, unless for certain reasons (rape, incest and medical reasons), is wrong, therefore it should not be made legal. It is after all, the question over wether an unborn child (its supporters like to dehumanise it into a "foetus")is allowed to live or not, and I think that the modern world, on the whole, is too morally lax to be allowed to make such a decision.
Ser Clegane
07-10-2005, 10:01
Yes, but only during the first 2-3 months (I also like the idea of mandatory counseling like we have it here).
After 3 months there should be special reasons (e.g., risk for the mother, rape - but even for rape cases there should be a certain threshold)
Oh my - how many times must we do this, you yanks are far too preoccupied with it.
But, of course I voted yes, providing it is in the first 24 weeks.
Yes up to 12 weeks.
After that it should be determined by a board of doctors and psychologists if an abortion should be carried out.
There should be a barrier of 22 weeks where after that no abortions should be carried out.
There should be regulations on the abortion techniques and methods.
E.g. up to 8 weeks allows abortion by operation, after that the abortion should be carried out by putting the mother into labour.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-10-2005, 16:21
I remember a guy saying that everybody should have reversible vasectomies, tying of Falopian tubes etc. until they had somehow proved themselves to be worthy and desirous of children. This would do away with huge demands for abortion and prevent scum from breeding and creating a million ruined childhoods.
Isn't that an excellent idea?
o.k. it has a few hints of eugenics but then again so does abortion on demand.
No. Two exceptions are rape and incest.
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 18:20
Abortion is state sanctioned murder.
Sjakihata
07-10-2005, 18:21
No it is not, but death penalty is, which you approve of.
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 18:29
I can distinguish between a child and a criminal, can you?
King of Atlantis
07-10-2005, 18:37
What i dont get is why is okay to have an abortion early, but not later?
Is killing a two year old different than killling a four year old??
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 18:41
What i dont get is why is okay to have an abortion early, but not later?
They use junk science to help justify enabling murder on a genocidal scale to themselves..
They use junk science to help justify enabling murder on a genocidal scale to themselves..
lol, oh dear. What rubbish.
As to your position a fellow patron pointing it out perfectly.
No it is not, but death penalty is, which you approve of.
Hypocrisy.
King of Atlantis
07-10-2005, 19:01
How is the death penalty murder?
Killing someone cause the commited a crime, ands it usually has to be a very big crime to get the death penalty. Should we release such crimanals on the street or give them worse punishment of life in prison?
And could someone who supports abortion please explain why aborting earlier is any different?
It is not within the appropriate use of State power to demand that a women carry a fetus - if the fetus can be delivered alive then that should be attempted, but the State should not be able to control the body of any free person.
Of course, abortion is a horrible, sad, difficult thing. I personally am opposed to it, I just don't think it is something the State needs to be involved in. Matters such as this should be left up to the woman, father, and their doctors, families, and counselors. Not some old Senator or bureaucrat.
ichi :bow:
So, do you belive legalizing abortion is a good or bad idea.
As far as I know abortion is already legalised...
If you want to fight the way US performs abortions, first compromise.
Samurai Waki
07-10-2005, 20:26
Hundreds of people die every day, whats one more? I personally don't care.
edyzmedieval
07-10-2005, 20:32
Abortion is a very bad thing.... It shouldn't be legalised....
Ser Clegane
07-10-2005, 20:33
They use junk science to help justify enabling murder on a genocidal scale to themselves..
"Junk science" by your definition. Excuse us if we rather go by science than by "what Panzerjager believes to be the truth"
Samurai Waki
07-10-2005, 20:35
Well you can make abortions illegal on your side of the fence, and I'll make em' legal on my side, and we'll see which side is more miserable after each side decides to have a huge population boom, with little or no economic malleability. Really, though, I don't care... I think educating people on not having sex is still a better alternative.
Kagemusha
07-10-2005, 20:39
I think educating people on not having sex is still a better alternative.
Educating people on not having sex?Thats one mighty task for someone. ~;)
Marcellus
07-10-2005, 20:47
Of course killing a child is wrong.
But this entire argument revolves around the definition of when a child is alive.
Do you say that a baby is alive at conception, at birth, or sometime in between? Most countries that allow abortion put the limit at the absolute earliest time at which a child can survive outside of its mother, e.g. 24 Weeks in the U.K..
Personally I think that this is a good limit to put on abortion.
Byzantine Prince
07-10-2005, 21:22
Ummm, why do we need abortio begin with. Is it not because of our own mistakes? A woman's right to choose? Is that a joke? The right to choose hapens *before* you have sex. Even Jebus would tell you that.
I don't know when a baby's life begins and frankly I don't care. Condoms were invented for a reason. And if you don't wanna risk it abstain until you're married. How hard is it?!?!
For now I think it's irresponsible to have abortions when we don't enough about human biology to prove the existence of life. Hell if we could prove that then we could find a way to bcome immortal once and for all.
So to put it all in perspective, abortions should be illigal and those people that take the chance of having kids early(meaning having sex) should bear the responsibilities and take care of the kid the best they can. It's their fault, if we tolerate it then we make it more widespread.
Marcellus
07-10-2005, 21:27
Condoms were invented for a reason.
They're not 100% effective
Sjakihata
07-10-2005, 21:47
Ummm, why do we need abortio begin with. Is it not because of our own mistakes? A woman's right to choose? Is that a joke? The right to choose hapens *before* you have sex. Even Jebus would tell you that.
I don't know when a baby's life begins and frankly I don't care. Condoms were invented for a reason. And if you don't wanna risk it abstain until you're married. How hard is it?!?!
For now I think it's irresponsible to have abortions when we don't enough about human biology to prove the existence of life. Hell if we could prove that then we could find a way to bcome immortal once and for all.
So to put it all in perspective, abortions should be illigal and those people that take the chance of having kids early(meaning having sex) should bear the responsibilities and take care of the kid the best they can. It's their fault, if we tolerate it then we make it more widespread.
Well, it is only a few rapists who are gentleman enough to wrap a condom around the little weenie during the rape...
Papewaio
07-10-2005, 22:00
So all you guys don't mind if a panel of women decide if you get a vasectomy or not?
Is masturbation denial of those sperms right to life? If only you did the right thing they could have gone on to be fully fledged humans. But instead of a nice healthy womb they are deposited in their millions in a tissue.
Abortion is state sanctioned murder.
No it is not, but death penalty is, which you approve of.
I´d say both are. ~;)
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 22:07
Is masturbation denial of those sperms right to life? If only you did the right thing they could have gone on to be fully fledged humans. But instead of a nice healthy womb they are deposited in their millions in a tissue.
Sperm on its own will not become human life. Sperm combined with egg will.
Junk science" by your definition. Excuse us if we rather go by science than by "what Panzerjager believes to be the truth"
Ive seen the definition of human change over and over again. 3 weeks, 3 months - its junk. The only for sure definition is conception.
Is masturbation denial of those sperms right to life?
The story of Onan the Barbarian (http://www.bibleword.org/genesis25.html) would suggest that deliberately killing your sperm is a no-no; not only displeasing to God, but also a form of single-cell genocide.
Byzantine Prince
07-10-2005, 22:08
So all you guys don't mind if a panel of women decide if you get a vasectomy or not?
Is masturbation denial of those sperms right to life? If only you did the right thing they could have gone on to be fully fledged humans. But instead of a nice healthy womb they are deposited in their millions in a tissue.
Umm, Pape only one of those sperms is actually useful. The rest of the 500,000 would die. And even if you don't masturbate at all that sperm would still die and be absorbed by your body in a matter of weeks. So what's the point? A sperm is disposable like dead skin cells or hair.
When the sperm joins with the egg, that's when it morphs into a being. If you kill that then you are basically commiting murder as far as we know. Anything trying to prove otherwise is junk science as Panzer stated earlier.
Well, it is only a few rapists who are gentleman enough to wrap a condom around the little weenie during the rape...
Oh please, that's the worst argument one could make about pro-choice. Rape victims don't have to kill their offspring, they can just send it for adoption. The father might be a bastard but there's nothing to indicate that the off spring will not be great person when they grow up.
Ser Clegane
07-10-2005, 22:10
The only for sure definition is conception.
Definition for what? And what is the definition in your opinion (conception is not a definition but a process)?
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 22:22
I figured it was understandable by context.
I hear different guesstimations for when a fetus changes from "a group of cells" to a real human all the time.
I believe in erring on the side of life, therefore the only true definition of when life begins is conception, when sperm fertilizes egg.
People who try and ascribe an arbitrary number of weeks to the definition of what human life is put way too much trust in scientific estimations, and dont take into account that the developmental process is not the exact same with every child. For example, a 3 week old child is not going to be in the exact same condition as another 3 week old.
Colovion
07-10-2005, 22:24
if I impregnated a girl who didn't want to have the baby, or didn't want to raise the young one or what have you I would strongly suggest adoption; though I realize this isn't something all women can do. Most women who carry a child of their own for 9 months are loath to give up such a personal creation simply for their own personal reasons. However - I believe that women should be given the choice to have an abortion and be thoroughly educated as to the negative aspects of the procedure. It may seem callous to say, though true; we have enough people in the world as it is.
Red Harvest
07-10-2005, 22:26
What cracks me up is that some of those most opposed (nationally) are equally opposed to contraception availability. The irony is incredible. On one hand they will treat abortion as the worst thing on Earth, but on the other hand work to make it more likely that someone is going to become unintentionally pregnant. I have to come down on the side of personal issues over others morality.
Abortion as birth control is a really unsavory thing to me and I couldn't do it except for some rather extreme circumstances, but banning it is wrong. Banning morning after pills is ridiculous too. It simply is not my choice to make how someone handles it. Screw "states rights" and the work of the vocal minorities. It would be nice to have reasonable guidelines, but the extremist anti-abortionists won't let well enough alone with reasonable restrictions. In this regard it is similar to gun control--only argued from the other side where the anti-gun extremists force many of us to resist all efforts at gun control, even ones we might otherwise find reasonable.
Another irony, the correlation between those favoring the death penalty but opposing abortion has been shown to be pretty high in the past (or perhaps it was vice versa?) (I'm pro-death penalty by the way, so I'm crossing the lines. ~D )
Sjakihata
07-10-2005, 22:27
Oh please, that's the worst argument one could make about pro-choice. Rape victims don't have to kill their offspring, they can just send it for adoption. The father might be a bastard but there's nothing to indicate that the off spring will not be great person when they grow up.
What about inscest then, if you don't find rape powerful enough? Should a daughter carry her fathers child?
Ive seen the definition of human change over and over again. 3 weeks, 3 months - its junk. The only for sure definition is conception. You can say the same thing about 'god'. God is junk?
If they find a way of forcing stem cells back into a state where they can create a whole human (ie back into an egg or whatever), how would people cope with that? It would make killing one person like killing billions.
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 22:56
What cracks me up is that some of those most opposed (nationally) are equally opposed to contraception availability. The irony is incredible. On one hand they will treat abortion as the worst thing on Earth, but on the other hand work to make it more likely that someone is going to become unintentionally pregnant. I have to come down on the side of personal issues over others morality.
Thats nothing but a lie, an unfounded belief in a certain stereotype, or just plain ignorance.
I am strongly against abortion and I have no problems with preventative contraception, and Im hardly the only one who shares those views.
I am all for the rights of an "individual", however I believe those rights begin when you are born. Up until that point those rights belong to the mother, as it is in her body. She is the one solely responsible for what happens to her body.
Some people say life begins at conception. I believe life begins at "first breath"; The breath of life. Up until the time the mother is responsible for sustaining that life inside her.
PanzerJaeger
07-10-2005, 22:59
You can say the same thing about 'god'. God is junk?
The belief or disbelief in God doesnt involve killing children, unless youre a muslim of extreme ideology.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
07-10-2005, 23:01
Oh please, that's the worst argument one could make about pro-choice.
You must be kidding! Your argument is worse.
Rape victims don't have to kill their offspring, they can just send it for adoption. The father might be a bastard but there's nothing to indicate that the off spring will not be great person when they grow up.
Have you ever been raped? Have you ever been pregnancy? Have you suffered the pains of birth?
I haven't neither, but I guess it isn't very easy to carry child you didn't even want 9 moths and then suffer the pains you didn't want.
In my obinion it is womans own decision and nobody should have any right take that from her.
Edit:How would you feel, if somebody would but some kind of parasite to your body whiteout your permision, but it is illegal to remove it and the only way to get rid of it, is to wait till it comes out itself in painfully way and it would leave permanently scar to your body?
Red Harvest
07-10-2005, 23:57
Thats nothing but a lie, an unfounded belief in a certain stereotype, or just plain ignorance.
No it is not. I was pointing out the irony of a major subgroup. It is hardly a stereotype, look at the Catholic churches stance on the two issue and tell me again it is a lie or "unfounded." Listening to others around me, I've found the correlation to be strong. Correlation does not mean 1 to 1 equivalency.
I am strongly against abortion and I have no problems with preventative contraception, and Im hardly the only one who shares those views.
And I never said you were. I was pointing out the irony of a large group that is trying to exert other portions of their particular moral judgements on to everyone else.
The belief or disbelief in God doesnt involve killing children, unless youre a muslim of extreme ideology. You can say the same thing about science.
'Life' itself is a scientific definition by Humans. How do you define 'life' in the first place without involving humans?
How can you start a 'Government' without humans defining what government is? Are there constitutional amendments? Who makes those changes? Humans do. Who makes the laws? Humans do.
Crazed Rabbit
07-11-2005, 01:09
It would be nice to have reasonable guidelines, but the extremist anti-abortionists won't let well enough alone with reasonable restrictions.
They cannot 'let well enough alone' because of that supremely idiotic Roe vs Wade decision, which had the effect of legalizing every single, possible, brutal form of abortion and infanticide known to man. It is not the pro-lifers who want absolutes, but the anti-lifers who will settle for nothing less.
I find it ironic that 100% of supporters of abortion rights have not, themselves, been aborted.
Crazed Rabbit
Mongoose
07-11-2005, 01:22
Kääpäkorven Konsuli, an unborn child is not a tape worm...comparing the two is absurd at best.
Should being wronged give you the right to wrong some one else? It's not the "parasite's" fault that it's father is a B**tard.
for once, i actually agree with BP. ~:eek:
Sjakihata
07-11-2005, 01:26
Luckily I don't!
If a 11 year old child have been raped and carries a child, she should have the option to _legally_ dispose of the consequence of the rape, simple as that.
I, however, don't approve of girls using abortion as luxury, although that seldom is the case.
And instead of educating people on not having sex (quite absurd) just teach them the value of the condom (not gonna happen with the new pope)
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-11-2005, 01:55
I think most Catholics are quite happy to ignore the Pope on contraception.
Muslims are the ones who seem to be firmly against contraception and abortion, that is, if you are going to throw around mass accusations about world religions.
Azi Tohak
07-11-2005, 02:21
I do not have the right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do with their body. The only time you have that right is your children, when they are under the age of 18 (at least here in the US). And I don't know what makes anyone else think they have the right. The Bible does not fly. Not everyone agrees with it, and you cannot force that on anyone else either.
I hate the thought of it, but I cannot tell anyone else they cannot do it.
Azi
Papewaio
07-11-2005, 03:07
Sperm on its own will not become human life. Sperm combined with egg will.
Actually sperm + egg + being healthy + womb.
The debate is does the person with the womb have the choice or does the state?
PanzerJaeger
07-11-2005, 03:44
No, the argument is: Should the woman have the right to murder a child simply because she was irresponsible.
No, the argument is: Should the woman have the right to murder a child simply because she was irresponsible.
Sorry. It is not a child until it is born !
Reverend Joe
07-11-2005, 04:07
:wall:
It just HAD to be posted...
Well, as long as I am here, I am for abortion, as well as contraception, cigarettes, and the death penalty. Basically, anything that reduces the number of people on the planet. I am also against gun control; however, I believe all ammunition for those firearms should be illegal (except musket balls and minie bullets). If you want to kill someone THAT bad, learn how to use a crossbow or a halberd or a No-Dachi or something.
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
07-11-2005, 09:28
Kääpäkorven Konsuli, an unborn child is not a tape worm...comparing the two is absurd at best.
Well, it takes your bowers and controls pretty much your life. If you didn't want it I don't know better word than parasite.
Should being wronged give you the right to wrong some one else? It's not the "parasite's" fault that it's father is a B**tard.
Is it the womans fault that she have been raped? If not why do you want to bunish her?
Kagemusha
07-11-2005, 16:34
I say yes.Here in my country it is legal.Think of an crack baby or an child of someone who has aids and the embriot has it too or a raped woman.Why cant those embriots be aborted?I know its against some peoples religional beliefs and im not even trying to chance those beliefs.This is just my own opinion. :bow:
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 16:54
Sorry. It is not a child until it is born !
Kiwitt, I find it surprising you're taking this 'breath of life' position, as you're usually pretty reasonable. You really believe a fetus, at 8 months, 3 weeks should be dismembered and vaccuumed because the mother 'changed her mind'? Are you really as ghoulish as all that?
As far as which side is responsible for no compromise, both are. The pro-life lobby wants to outlaw all abortions, even ones for medical reasons (life of the mother is in jeoprady), the pro-choice lobby favors Kiwitt's views. In truth, very few people in the real world (outside lobbying land) favor either of these extreme positions. I suspect it's a mutual agreement not to comporomise, as the lobbyists make a fortune in 'fighting for the rights of women' or 'fighting for the rights of the unborn', and a compromise solution will dry that PAC money right up.
Personally, I think up until 13 weeks, when there is no viability and organs are not formed, it's still a woman's decision. 14-20 weeks, as the fetus has all the working parts to continue on it's own, they just need more development time, it has to be a question that involves medical staff. After 20 weeks, unless the fetus is killing the mother, there is no reason to have an abortion, and that should be the only allowable reason.
I am personally against abortion for elective reasons, even in the first trimester, but I don't believe it's the sort of problem you should solve legally. The answer is to make it unheard of.
Steppe Merc
07-11-2005, 17:02
Well, pretty much what Don said:
Personally, I think up until 13 weeks, when there is no viability and organs are not formed, it's still a woman's decision. 14-20 weeks, as the fetus has all the working parts to continue on it's own, they just need more development time, it has to be a question that involves medical staff. After 20 weeks, unless the fetus is killing the mother, there is no reason to have an abortion, and that should be the only allowable reason.
And while I'm not against abortion, I think that if a mother doesn't realize she doesn't want a kid within the amount of time that is given, it's her fault, and she's going to have to live with it (unless it is going to kill her or something).
I think most Catholics are quite happy to ignore the Pope on contraception.
Muslims are the ones who seem to be firmly against contraception and abortion, that is, if you are going to throw around mass accusations about world religions.
Eh.. I'm catholic, I think you are right.
Teutonic Knight
07-11-2005, 18:24
I, however, don't approve of girls using abortion as luxury, although that seldom is the case.
And instead of educating people on not having sex (quite absurd) just teach them the value of the condom (not gonna happen with the new pope)
Please defend the statement that abstinence is 'quite absurd' in the matter of preventing pregnancy.
You're quite wrong about 'most' Catholics ignoring church teaching on contraception. While that may be true of leftist European 'Catholics' and some Americans, the vast majority of the Church's population is in obedience to the faith.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-11-2005, 18:51
I bet you a far higher proprtion of Catholics ignore the vatican on contraception than Muslims ignore their religious leaders on the same subject.
I was just answering the suggestion that somehow it is just Christians, and especially Catholics, who aren't so happy with birth control and abortion.
Also, if the Europeans and North Americans are the only Catholics ignoring the Vatican then it would only be a small majority of other Catholics who did so (as about 40% of Catholics are in Europe, not sure on N. American numbers but as they make up the single largest Christian denomination in North America I believe they would be worth a few more percentge points on top of the European total))
40% of Catholics are in Europe.
30% of Catholics are in the Americas.
17% of Catholics are in Asia.
12% of Catholics are in Africa.
UglyandHasty
07-11-2005, 18:59
It is not within the appropriate use of State power to demand that a women carry a fetus - if the fetus can be delivered alive then that should be attempted, but the State should not be able to control the body of any free person.
Of course, abortion is a horrible, sad, difficult thing. I personally am opposed to it, I just don't think it is something the State needs to be involved in. Matters such as this should be left up to the woman, father, and their doctors, families, and counselors. Not some old Senator or bureaucrat.
ichi :bow:
Ichi got it ! I vote yes for the 2 first month of pregnancy, after that its a no go.
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 19:12
I vote yes for the 2 first month of pregnancy, after that its a no go.
Can I just ask, why only in the first two months? What changes after two months?
Personally, I think up until 13 weeks, when there is no viability and organs are not formed, it's still a woman's decision. 14-20 weeks, as the fetus has all the working parts to continue on it's own, they just need more development time, it has to be a question that involves medical staff. After 20 weeks, unless the fetus is killing the mother, there is no reason to have an abortion, and that should be the only allowable reason.
I am personally against abortion for elective reasons, even in the first trimester, but I don't believe it's the sort of problem you should solve legally. The answer is to make it unheard of.
Sums it up nicely about what my postion is on the issue of abortion. And futhermore I have nothing more informative or useful on the matter.
However to point out something about Jag's arguement. If your for abortion and not the death pently - are you to not committing hypocrisy also?
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 19:17
I said 3 months as the end of elective abortion, but that stems from viability and physical development. There are no further physiological evolutions in the fetus from roughly 14 weeks on, it just continues to develop what already exists. Generally speaking, positions on limiting abortion on a time-based difference use viability of the fetus, level of fetal development or measurements of fetal brain activity for the grounds of when elective abortion should be allowed (or not).
Generally speaking, in the United States, such criteria have been found by higher courts to not pass constitutional muster. The way the rules are right now, women can change their mind on the way to the delivery room and go to the abortion clinic instead, simply because they've had a change of heart. The US Supreme Court hasn't ruled one way or the other on time limits.
Can I just ask, why only in the first two months? What changes after two months?
Nothing much - but its a better sounding board the absolutely no abortion and is better then allowing abortion into the final trimester.
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 19:19
If your for abortion and not the death pently - are you to not committing hypocrisy also?
Not necessarily - you may believe that a developing foetus is not alive whilst in its mother. However a criminal is undeniably alive.
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 19:47
I've never bought that abortion and the death penalty are inherently linked.
In one case, you're asking the State to allow you the individual to do something (allow the abortionist to execute the fetus). In the other, the State is taking rights unto itself (the State is acting as executioner).
If you want to link an issue to abortion, I would argue the question of use of lethal force in self-defense is a closer parallel.
Red Harvest
07-11-2005, 19:57
No, the argument is: Should the woman have the right to murder a child simply because she was irresponsible.
What an absurdly simplistic generalization. So her getting raped is irresponsible. Or having her birth control fail was irresponsible (many, many women don't know that antibiotics often make the pill ineffective for example.) If her partner's condom fails is that *her* fault?
I don't think my wife or female family members would have any desire to carry the child of a rapist. It wouldn't be my choice to make. Do you have any idea how common rape is? You obviously have no idea how under reported rape is...or why. Women and friends have discussed their own experiences with me on a number of occasions. The one that had the worst overall experience was the one that reported the incident. Her Catholic college blamed her and ignored her attacker, so she ended up victimized twice.
And what happens if the woman learns after becoming pregnant that her boyfriend/husband, etc. has changed his mind, leaves her, abuses her, is not who he claims to be, etc. I suppose this would qualify *her* as irresponsible again. You might want to try considering things from something other than your own narrow perspective. Deciding that those who want abortions are "irresponsible" is painting with a mighty wide brush.
Teutonic Knight
07-11-2005, 20:20
I bet you a far higher proprtion of Catholics ignore the vatican on contraception than Muslims ignore their religious leaders on the same subject.
I'd bet that too, but I'd also bet that in the places where many of them live the teachings of Islam are enforced by the law.
Also, if the Europeans and North Americans are the only Catholics ignoring the Vatican then it would only be a small majority of other Catholics who did so (as about 40% of Catholics are in Europe, not sure on N. American numbers but as they make up the single largest Christian denomination in North America I believe they would be worth a few more percentge points on top of the European total))
40% of Catholics are in Europe.
30% of Catholics are in the Americas.
17% of Catholics are in Asia.
12% of Catholics are in Africa.
A) I'm not sure where you got those figures
B) I didn't say that ALL European and American Catholics disobeyed church teaching on the subject, I said many or most.
C) You do realize that the sum of those figures is 99% right?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-11-2005, 20:26
damn.
my mistake, that was actually ordinations of priests.
I was pretty surprised to see so many from Europe.
I'll go find the actual figures, sorry.
Update:
the actual figures are:
Half the world's Catholics are in the Americas (49.9%); 26.15% in Europe; 12.84% in Africa; 10.3% in Asia; and 0.78% in Oceania.
According to Global Catholic News. Based on 2002 figures.
I believe the figures for the U.S. and Canada are roughly 10% of world Catholics.
Teutonic Knight
07-11-2005, 20:41
Well your basic point is quite correct, Christians are not the only ones who are ethically opposed to abortion/contraception. As you mentioned the entire orthodox Islamic teaching is opposed to abortion/contraception and there are other religious groups who support the pro-life cause, but I'm not sure about the specifics of their beleifs.
But as far as faithfulness to church teaching goes, it is mainly those people in the West (Europe, N. America) who are reluctant to obedience. That is based on a generalization of course, as I know of many, many faithful American and European Catholics but they are, unfortunately, in the minority.
Steppe Merc
07-11-2005, 20:42
Nothing much - but its a better sounding board the absolutely no abortion and is better then allowing abortion into the final trimester.
My thoughts exactly.
Are you really as ghoulish as all that?
No !!! Just that the Mother is more important than the fetus.
I just believe a mother is more important than the fetus she is carrying. Right up until birth. If I was in the ER, and the choice was save the fetus or save the mother, I would chose the mother. Therefore the mother is more important to me. The future child is an unknown in comparison.
As to the time periods about when you should be able to abort the fetus, I think the idea of the first trimester being an acceptable time, after that time the mother should be given all the support to take the fetus to term. If however the mother's life is in danger, I would recommend aborting the fetus at any time.
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 21:38
No !!! Just that the Mother is more important than the fetus.
I just believe a mother is more important than the fetus she is carrying. Right up until birth. If I was in the ER, and the choice was save the fetus or save the mother, I would chose the mother. Therefore the mother is more important to me. The future child is an unknown in comparison.
As to the time periods about when you should be able to abort the fetus, I think the idea of the first trimester being an acceptable time, after that time the mother should be given all the support to take the fetus to term. If however the mother's life is in danger, I would recommend aborting the fetus at any time.
Nobody's arguing any of that. The debate with time limits doesn't have anything to do with the life/physical health of the mother. All but the most extreme on the pro-life side take it for granted that if it's for medical reasons, of course the mother's life should count more than the child's. But from about 6 months on, if you're truly interested in the health of the mother, a Cesarian section delivery is safer than a partial birth abortion (which actually, is a fairly risky procedure).
The whole time limit debate is over elective abortions, which in America, as I said, you can get up until the moment the baby is born.
Thanks Don. Then my position is.
Abortion: Yes Timefame: 1st Trimester (a mother's choice)
Subsequent "Trimesters": No, unless the woman's health is in danger.
I was not aware you allow abortions right up to the end of the last trimester ?
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 22:35
The last hour. We're soulless barbarians. :skull:
Red Harvest
07-11-2005, 22:43
Interesting that nobody mentions certain types of birth defects and the like. My wife and I discussed this at length. Neither of us felt it made any sense to bring a severely damaged child into the world if we knew sufficiently in advance of the trouble. It is very gray as to exactly where the yes/no level of problems would have been. Having to make such a determination (either way) was one of the biggest fears we had. It sure as hell isn't something I want the state, courts, etc. involved in. Fortunately, the situation never arose.
I think elective abortion should be outlawed. If it will be seriously physically/mentally harmful to the mother then it should be allowed at the doctors discretion.
The argument always seems to get down to personal responsibility/the woman's choice about her own body. If the woman chooses to have sex, she should assume the responsibility of any consequences that has. You can partially mitigate the risk by using birth control- but it's not 100% and one should still be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.
Now of course, the counter to that argument that is always put forth is that what if she is raped and not given a choice... First, that scenario is a ridiculously small portion of abortions. Second, if a rape results in pregnancy, after counseling and explanation of her options we should allow the abortion. Where does that leave the pro-abort crowd? Both the health and rape arguments are addressed.
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 22:49
You can partially mitigate the risk by using birth control- but it's not 100% and one should still be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.
Yes, women whose birth control fails should face the consequences of *their* actions.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 22:54
Rush Answers Abortion Question
July 8, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
I've saved this and the response to it for today, Open Line Friday, to share with you. This woman is a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com. She said, "Rush..." Her name is Anita. "Rush, I'm a die-hard fan. Though I was raised to support a woman's right to choose, since becoming a mother and listening to you over these many years, I've come to strongly believe that abortion is wrong. But because I'm conservative and believe in property rights, I can't reconcile the government's involvement in the ultimate property right to your own body. Can you help me?"
So I thought about this, and I wrote her back. I said: Dear Anita, perhaps I can. Our Declaration of Independence states that as free human beings, we are entitled to LIFE," and I put that in all caps, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration also says that these rights are "inalienable" and "granted by our Creator," God. If our government does not stand for and protect these basic rights, which are the essence of our creation and humanity, then it will not protect any others. In our history, we've had human beings, members of the Supreme Court, give us the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which established that we as human beings could consider certain of our fellow human beings as our property.
Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.
I just believe a mother is more important than the fetus she is carrying.
Why? ~:confused:
If I was in the ER, and the choice was save the fetus or save the mother,
Again why?
Sorry. It is not a child until it is born !
Its still human. A baby isnt a man either so I guess we can kill anyone until their 18.
Let me re quote this part as it pertains to we cant tell a woman what to do with HER body.
your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is nothing I know of that is so plainly unconstitutional as abortion. It takes away the 1st and most basic right the constitution and declaration of independance give us.
PanzerJaeger
07-11-2005, 23:01
What an absurdly simplistic generalization. So her getting raped is irresponsible. Or having her birth control fail was irresponsible (many, many women don't know that antibiotics often make the pill ineffective for example.) If her partner's condom fails is that *her* fault?
Rape as a reason for abortion is tiny.
I don't think my wife or female family members would have any desire to carry the child of a rapist. It wouldn't be my choice to make. Do you have any idea how common rape is? You obviously have no idea how under reported rape is...or why. Women and friends have discussed their own experiences with me on a number of occasions. The one that had the worst overall experience was the one that reported the incident. Her Catholic college blamed her and ignored her attacker, so she ended up victimized twice.
Im very aware of the nature of rape, that doesnt change the fact that it alone cannot be used to justify the practice of abortion. Its what we call a special circumstance.
In any event, why does a fathers crime affect his child? The child is still a human being that should have all the rights as the mother.
But theres really little point in addressing the rape argument, because its a diversion.
And what happens if the woman learns after becoming pregnant that her boyfriend/husband, etc. has changed his mind, leaves her, abuses her, is not who he claims to be, etc. I suppose this would qualify *her* as irresponsible again. You might want to try considering things from something other than your own narrow perspective. Deciding that those who want abortions are "irresponsible" is painting with a mighty wide brush.
She chose to have sex with that man and created life. Simply because she chose to sleep around with a bad guy doesnt mean she has the right to kill that child.
Its all about personal responsibility. If you arent prepared to face the consequences of a possible birth control failure, then dont have sex.
Rape is a special circumstance that could be addressed in any legislation that bans abortion on demand. The rape argument is a red herring. ~:handball:
Red Harvest
07-11-2005, 23:03
One thing is clear. This argument is almost entirely about one's religious stance. Most of us don't want somebody else's religious views making these type of decisions for us. You are free to follow your own beliefs with respect to your own life, but not to enforce your *religious* views on the rest of us.
If the woman chooses to have sex, she should assume the responsibility of any consequences that has.
As to "Birth Control", some young men are now saying to "naive" women, don't you trust me, of course I am "clean" as to the reason not to wear condoms.
Sometimes they are driven by "passion" and as we all know they are then not acting rationally at the time, "just going with the moment". In the cold light of day she can then see the consequences and needs to make a choice.
And that is the point I make it is "her" choice. We we should be there to help her make it. Once she has made that choice we should respect it. Freedom of what a person does to their own body and her life is a freedom we should not take away.
PanzerJaeger
07-11-2005, 23:05
One thing is clear. This argument is almost entirely about one's religious stance. Most of us don't want somebody else's religious views making these type of decisions for us. You are free to follow your own beliefs with respect to your own life, but not to enforce your *religious* views on the rest of us.
Another untrue stereotype about the Pro-Life movement.
King of Atlantis
07-11-2005, 23:06
How is anti-abortion religious? I am not against killing innocent life because of my religious values.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 23:06
One thing is clear. This argument is almost entirely about one's religious stance.
~:confused:
It has nothing to do with a persons religous stand. Sure you could say killing is against the 10 commandments but thats about it. I and most here dont oppose abortion for religous reasons. Again life is the first right you have. Its about the sanctity of human life and nothng more.
As to "Birth Control", some young men are now saying to "naive" women, don't you trust me, of course I am "clean" as to the reason not to wear condoms.
Sometimes they are driven by "passion" and as we all know they are then not acting rationally at the time, "just going with the moment". In the cold light of day she can then see the consequences and needs to make a choice.
And that is the point I make it is "her" choice. We we should be there to help her make it. Once she has made that choice we should respect it. Freedom of what a person does to their own body and her life is a freedom we should not take away.
Being overcome by passion is a poor argument for abortion. If you're driving drunk and get in an accident does being drunk absolve you from responsibility? Of course not- it's still your choice to drive and it's still your choice to have sex.
As to the bf saying "don't you trust me?", I think the proper resonse would be "on something this important, I don't trust anybody" Is it fair that so much of the responsibility falls on the woman? Maybe not, but she's the one that usually has to deal with the consequences, whether its an abortion or a child- that's the way life is.
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 23:10
One thing is clear. This argument is almost entirely about one's religious stance. Most of us don't want somebody else's religious views making these type of decisions for us. You are free to follow your own beliefs with respect to your own life, but not to enforce your *religious* views on the rest of us.
No, it has to do with one's view on murder, and when life begins.
Red, just out of curiousity. I've made my views pretty clear. Do you think I'm a religious fundamentalist, because I don't support a woman's right to choose into the 9th month?
Goofball
07-11-2005, 23:14
Had to vote GAH!
This is not a yes or no issue for me but I am sure of my opinion, so I could not vote "unsure".
As I've already debated it at length in this forum, I'm not going to restate my position in this thread. I haven't read through the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet that the topic has become heated, and that the word "murderer" has been thrown around a bit.
Note: I said "naive" women. These type of people are easily influenced and do not have the same level of mental strength to deal with the issue, and especially when under the influence of "emotion".
... and it's still your choice to have sexTrue. And now it is also her choice if she wants to have a baby.
Don Corleone
07-11-2005, 23:23
Guys, it's a very simple question. When does life begin? Because we can all agree that after 3 weeks out of the womb, if you decide you don't want to be a parent, you don't have the 'choice' to take your child to a doctor and have it dismembered. As far as I know, medical science has shown that a human fetus can pretty much survive outside the womb from about 21 weeks on. So the only difference from that point on, and what NARAL would call a 'real baby', is being pushed through the birth canal (and I guess that means babies born by c-section don't have a right to life).
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 23:23
Note: I said "naive" women. These type of people are easily influenced and do not have the same level of mental strength to deal with the issue, and especially when under the influence of "emotion".
So if I tell her she has to rob a bank to prove she loves me and does then we shouldnt blame here ?
True. And now it is also her choice if she wants to have a baby.
But why is it? Only because the supreme court over ran its bounds.
Goofball
07-11-2005, 23:28
I haven't read through the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet that the topic has become heated, and that the word "murderer" has been thrown around a bit.
Wow. Do I ever know this forum. Just read through the first page only and already one mention of "murder" and one of "genocide," both from the same individual.
Something I'm curious about. Those of you that are anti-abortion tend to pretty much be the same crowd who are opposed to gay marriage. Now, whenever we have a discussion about gay marriage and I submit that not allowing gays to marry is discrimination, the anti-gay crowd gets their panties all tied in knots and demands my appologies for personally insulting them.
However, whenever we are discussing abortion, you folks seem to find nothing wrong with throwing the word "murder" around. Apparently being called a "baby-murder supporter" isn't insulting. I guess I should just shut my gob and get on with life.
~:rolleyes:
So if I tell her she has to rob a bank to prove she loves me and does then we shouldnt blame here ? Some people who are "so in love" will do anything to prove it.
But why is it? Only because the supreme court over ran its bounds.The US supreme court has no jurisdiction here in NZ and elsewhere And should not form part of this debate, as abortion is an international issue.[
Guys, it's a very simple question. When does life begin? As I said at first breath. That is your birthday and everyone elses.
I guess I should just shut my gob and get on with life.
Well, you said it- not us. ~D
Sorry, couldnt resist.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 23:37
The US supreme court has no jurisdiction here in NZ and elsewhere And should not form part of this debate, as abortion is an international issue.
No abortion is a local issue. I dont care what laws you have in NZ. It used to be a local issue here until SCOTUS stuck their noses into it.
Red, just out of curiousity. I've made my views pretty clear. Do you think I'm a religious fundamentalist, because I don't support a woman's right to choose into the 9th month?
Nope, you have a sound mind.
I am debating from another country, hence the reason I am debating it. This "forum" is an international one so debate from other countries expected.
There was no mention in the beginning that it was a US-only issue.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 23:46
There was no mention in the beginning that it was a US-only issue.
Its not. Again I dont care what you do in NZ nor can I have any effect on your country. I can only speak on how this issue affects us here in the US as far as the law goes.
Goofball
07-11-2005, 23:52
No abortion is a local issue. I dont care what laws you have in NZ. It used to be a local issue here until SCOTUS stuck their noses into it.
Actually, SCOTUS didn't "stick its nose" into anything. Roe v. Wade was brought before the courts by a woman who was having the choice of what to do with her own body taken away from her (and later expanded to include other individuals, including a doctor who had been arrested for violating state abortion laws). The SC didn't go out looking for the case, nor have they ever gone out looking for any case. That isn't how they operate. They cannot rule on a case unless it is brought before them by a complainant or defendant. You should know that. The SC serves a noble purpose in being the last defense against the tyranny of the majority, and I think for the most part they do a pretty good job.
Fair enough Gawain, each country has it's own conditions to address.
So for NZ, I support abortion "choice" for the reasons I have said above and the timeframes allowable that I have outlined.
Red Harvest
07-11-2005, 23:57
No, it has to do with one's view on murder, and when life begins.
Red, just out of curiousity. I've made my views pretty clear. Do you think I'm a religious fundamentalist, because I don't support a woman's right to choose into the 9th month?
Not a fundamentalist.
Yet most of the arguments about "when life begins" have a serious religious aspect to them and lose rationality fairly quickly. This is THE issue for many on the religious right. I don't see abortion as murder, as much as I personally disagree with it in many situations. I don't feel outsiders have the right to make the judgements, particularly since they are so strongly tied to their own religious views. There is an awful stench of the religious right attempting to exact their own religious punishment on others. I don't feel I have the right to make the judgement, and I certainly am not willing to let the religious extremists do it.
As a man, I feel on particularly weak ground to make such decisions. Yet I find in my own experience that men are the most vocal on this issue.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 23:57
Actually, SCOTUS didn't "stick its nose" into anything.
Im afraid they did. The reason is they had no way of backing this decision on the constitution. They went where no judge had gone before as it were and made their own law.
he SC serves a noble purpose in being the last defense against the tyranny of the majority, and I think for the most part they do a pretty good job.
In this case they supported the tyranny of the minority over the majority. That seems to be their motus operande lately. For the most part I think they suck as do the majority of Americans. When the populous looses faith in the SC theres something desperatly wrong. Thankfully it wont be long untill 3 new originalist are placed on this court and we can return to constitutional rule instead of the rule of SCOTUS.
Sjakihata
07-11-2005, 23:59
that is quite an isolationist view.
abortion is indeed an international issue, which is allowed in denmark, for example. it is weird that you only want to discuss it from a US standpoint, because all others doesnt really care about the US only, but from an ethical point of view or internationally - which apply everywhere.
I am debating from another country, hence the reason I am debating it. This "forum" is an international one so debate from other countries expected.
There was no mention in the beginning that it was a US-only issue.
It is because this is a non-issue in our countries.
In the states they have no regulations because of a Supreme Court ruling. I think it was Wade vs. the state of Texas?
In practice any woman in the US can choose to have an abortion up to the moment she delivers.
There are no rules to the methods used either, some of the abortion methods are quite abhorrent. This is naturally quite an unpleasant reality which I think anyone on this board would think little of. Any realist will see that there is no way one can fully ban abortion. There will always be back alley clinics and quacks with knitting needles.
It is much better that this is regulated and controlled.
That is why the US should press for compromise. To regulate the chaos that exists today.
As I said at first breath. That is your birthday and everyone elses.
And you think a baby doesn´t breathe inside the womb? Maybe it doesn´t move it´s lungs that much, but you know what that long tube is for that connects the baby to it´s mother? IIRC, the mother and the baby even have different circles of blood, that means they are two separate individuals, the baby just needs the mother to get "ressources" and security. The alternative would be an egg, like those from birds. Babies can even move and put their fingers into their mouth when they are still inside the womb, apart from that I heard that they feel pain if you just "vacuum" them out of the womb, saying they are not worthy to live is saying you can kill them and thus supporting murder.
@Goofball: Yes, I really said that. If someone shot you and was called a murderer would that be offensive towards him? If someone would suck you into a (relatively)giant vacuum-cleaner would calling him a murderer be offensive? Well, in the US he could possibly sue me, but luckily I´m german. ~D ~;)
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-12-2005, 00:08
While I would advocate absolutely no abortion (except maybe to protect the mother and maybe incest and maybe rape) I would be pretty happy with "no unnecesary abortions after 14 weeks," given the political climate in the US right now. :book:
While I would advocate absolutely no abortion (except maybe to protect the mother and maybe incest and maybe rape) I would be pretty happy with "no unnecesary abortions after 14 weeks," given the political climate in the US right now. :book:
But again, as I laid out earlier, if you make an exception for rape, incest, or to protect the mother, what rational argument can someone make for elective abortions?
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 00:26
Not a fundamentalist.
Yet most of the arguments about "when life begins" have a serious religious aspect to them and lose rationality fairly quickly. This is THE issue for many on the religious right. I don't see abortion as murder, as much as I personally disagree with it in many situations. I don't feel outsiders have the right to make the judgements, particularly since they are so strongly tied to their own religious views. There is an awful stench of the religious right attempting to exact their own religious punishment on others. I don't feel I have the right to make the judgement, and I certainly am not willing to let the religious extremists do it.
As a man, I feel on particularly weak ground to make such decisions. Yet I find in my own experience that men are the most vocal on this issue.
It depends on whether 'moment of life' smacks of religious overtones or not. You have to realize, there's more than 2 camps on this issue, even here in the Backroom. Actually, if you want to talk about unscientific superstition, it'd be Kiwitt's 'first breath' definition. Almost nobody in the medical profession (except, possibly abortionists, who have a financial interest in the matter) would agree with this.
Most medical ethicists place the definition of 'human life' at viability. I do not see how from that moment on you can justify abortion for any other reason than to save the life of the mother, and in almost all such cases, a C-section delivery is actually much safer for the mother. Please, don't ask me why this is, just take my word for it...
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 00:28
While I would advocate absolutely no abortion (except maybe to protect the mother and maybe incest and maybe rape) I would be pretty happy with "no unnecesary abortions after 14 weeks," given the political climate in the US right now. :book:
I'd be happy if we could just catch up to 'enlightened Europe' (Yay, I finally get to steal the Left's favorite argument) and agree that 3rd trimester elective abortions are barbaric and need to be stopped.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 00:32
I'd be happy if we could just catch up to 'enlightened Europe' (Yay, I finally get to steal the Left's favorite argument) and agree that 3rd trimester elective abortions are barbaric and need to be stopped.
Yup one step at a time. At least over their they are sensible on the matter. We have to start getting back to a culture of life instead of death.
Goofball
07-12-2005, 00:34
@Goofball: Yes, I really said that. If someone shot you and was called a murderer would that be offensive towards him? If someone would suck you into a (relatively)giant vacuum-cleaner would calling him a murderer be offensive?
The difference is that I am an acknowledged sentient human being. The only arguments made to try to prove that early-term fetuses are actually "human life" are based on emotion or religion, two very dubious sources.
But let me ask you this: Since you think it's fair game to call me a murderer for supporting early-term abortion, is it also fair for me to call you an "oppressor" or a "slaver" for wanting to dictate to women what they can or can't do with their own bodies?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 00:42
The only arguments made to try to prove that early-term fetuses are actually "human life" are based on emotion or religion, two very dubious sources.
No there based on facts. A human fetus is human by its very definition and its certainly alive. Religion dosent enter into the equation. Do you have laws in Canada now like we have in the US that if you kill a pregnant woman and here FETUS dies you get accused of double murder? Apparenty even the congress is confused as to what constitutes human life. How can ot be legal for a doctor to kill a baby in the most horrible of ways and yet look at the kid in Texas whos is going away for life because his pregnant GF asked him to help her abort their baby. Again I guess he didnt have the license to kill that the doctor had.
is it also fair for me to call you an "oppressor" or a "slaver" for wanting to dictate to women what they can or can't do with their own bodies?
No everyone has things that the law forbids them from doing with their bodies. Why are women so special in this case. Hell its against the law for me to even kill myself.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 00:43
that is quite an isolationist view.
abortion is indeed an international issue, which is allowed in denmark, for example. it is weird that you only want to discuss it from a US standpoint, because all others doesnt really care about the US only, but from an ethical point of view or internationally - which apply everywhere.
I think a big part of it stems from the fact that the US has such bizarre abortion laws, because they were dictated by a court, not legislated by an assembly. In Denmark, can a woman on her way to the delivery room change her mind and head to the abortion clinic? Cause in America they sure can. Also, America is unique in that 70% of women who've had abortions have had more than 1 and 40% have had more than 2. Clearly, it's not a 'one time accident' here in America.
Steppe Merc
07-12-2005, 01:44
Yup one step at a time. At least over their they are sensible on the matter. We have to start getting back to a culture of life instead of death.
If culture is a culture of life, than they can't have war. Sure war may be needed, but then that isn't a culture of life. If you want to "err on the side of life", than that culture would have to be totally pacifistic, no death penalty, no wars. Yes, that would likely be impossible. But I don't see how a first term abortion (which is all I think ought to be legal, unless mom is in danger, etc.), is worse than dropping bombs or electrecuting people.
Mongoose
07-12-2005, 02:10
Geez..here we go again.... ~:rolleyes:
An uborn child is NOT a tape worm
An uborn child is NOT a convicted felon
An uborn child is NOT an armed soldier
Do i need to repeat myself? :dizzy2:
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 02:40
I think most Catholics are quite happy to ignore the Pope on contraception.
Muslims are the ones who seem to be firmly against contraception and abortion, that is, if you are going to throw around mass accusations about world religions.
Then it must be another reason for the booming of condom sales in Indonesia........ :balloon2:
Papewaio
07-12-2005, 03:59
Geez..here we go again.... ~:rolleyes:
An uborn child is NOT a tape worm
An uborn child is NOT a convicted felon
An uborn child is NOT an armed soldier
Do i need to repeat myself? :dizzy2:
Yes, but this time decide if it is going to be Uboat or Unborn... ~D
Red Harvest
07-12-2005, 07:10
Most medical ethicists place the definition of 'human life' at viability. I do not see how from that moment on you can justify abortion for any other reason than to save the life of the mother, and in almost all such cases, a C-section delivery is actually much safer for the mother. Please, don't ask me why this is, just take my word for it...
That is my own personal opinion as well, but that is not going to be acceptable to a rather substantial percentage of those opposed to abortion. And what is going to happen when they try to prosecute a doctor and woman for murder with their own definition of when life becomes viable? These same folks are also the ones that will scream until they are blue in the face that Schiavo was murdered by her husband. There are prosecutors, governors (Jeb) and even Presidents (Dubya) who are likely to agree with them no matter how preposterous their claims.
No, I'm sorry, but I'll take the side of restricting the powers of religious extremists almost every time. I consider Christian extremists just as dangerous as Islamic (perhaps more so, since there are more Christian extremists in close proximity.)
I consider Christian extremists just as dangerous as Islamic (perhaps more so, since there are more Christian extremists in close proximity.)Wow, that speaks volumes....
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 07:43
Whay christian extremist have done anything close to the terrorist?
Dont even say the ira cause the only want ireland and use much less devastating tactics.
Red Harvest
07-12-2005, 07:48
Wow, that speaks volumes....
Yes, it does. I am opposed to religious extremists in all flavors. Would love to see the world if they all disappeared overnight. Somehow, I think it would be closer to what Jesus Christ represented. I don't think He would approve of much of the Christian right either.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 07:50
Yes, it does. I am opposed to religious extremists in all flavors.
Well personally I am opposed to extremists in all flavors religious or not.
PanzerJaeger
07-12-2005, 07:50
I consider Christian extremists just as dangerous as Islamic (perhaps more so, since there are more Christian extremists in close proximity.)
Wow, now Christians are more dangerous than muslims.. How many buildings have those devilish souls knocked down?
I am repelled by the concept of abortion, but I can't justify telling a pregnant woman what she should or shouldn't do about it.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 07:54
Here comes the old "what about the bombing of abortion clinics "arguement as if that is in some way comparable.
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 08:03
Less devestating tactics.. lol.
Hmm.. The IRA usually tries to avoid civilian causalties and has realized that winnig politically is a better idea.
I think the various Inquisitions are the most infamous christian terrorists.
So now were judging groups on the past? The medieval time period was a brutal time period. That is what caused the inquisition. Judging people of the past with a modern eye is horrible. The problem is muslim extremist are acting as bad/worse as catholics did in the medieval age.
Red Harvest
07-12-2005, 08:16
Wow, now Christians are more dangerous than muslims.. How many buildings have those devilish souls knocked down?
How many millions have been killed in the name of God? How many Christians have been killed by other Christians in the name of God? Let's not forget the evils of the Church and its progeny. Let's not forget justifying slavery, and subjugations of native americans on both religious and racial grounds (not only in the U.S, but on both American continents.) There was a time when Islamic nations were far more tolerant and advanced than Christian nations. Seems strange to consider it now, but it is true. Do I blame God for these things? No, I blame my fellow man. I would be a fool to ignore what my fellow man will do in the name of religion.
How many millions have been killed in the name of God? How many Christians have been killed by other Christians in the name of God? Let's not forget the evils of the Church and its progeny. Let's not forget justifying slavery, and subjugations of native americans on both religious and racial grounds (not only in the U.S, but on both American continents.) There was a time when Islamic nations were far more tolerant and advanced than Christian nations. Seems strange to consider it now, but it is true. Do I blame God for these things? No, I blame my fellow man. I would be a fool to ignore what my fellow man will do in the name of religion.So the Crusades make todays Christian fundamentalists more dangerous than Muslim ones... how?
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 08:41
Every we judge people of the past then everybody is guilty.
I hate when people mention the crusades as christian extremist and say it can be compared to the terrorist.
That was the world the lived in at the time. Conquer or be conquered. Muhamed himself was a warlord and early islamic conquests to the ottman empire killed many christians. So, are the christians horrible cause they tried to take back some of the lands that the arabs stole from them? Seems like a logical reaction when you look at how catholics behaved towards eachother during the same time period.
The mentality is alive and well that Christianity is superior to other religions
What religion do you know of that says it isnt the only true faith. It would brake the whole point of religion.
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 08:41
Hmm.. The IRA usually tries to avoid civilian causalties and has realized that winnig politically is a better idea.
Hopefully we can convince bin Laden to be in the next Iraqi election..... ~;)
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 08:45
Hopefully we can convince bin Laden to be in the next Iraqi election..... ~;)
Lets see... IRA-wants north ireland-tries to avoid many casualties-refuses to use weapons of mass destruction. Is changing from violent methods to peaceful politics.
bin laden-wants the world to convert to his form of islam or die.
Yep, might as well, he seems to be at the same level as the ira ~;)
Btw, If bin Laden and other extremist gave up their ways and tried to make a peacful political argument for their cause i would be very happy.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
07-12-2005, 09:27
Back on topic...
I got no problem with abortion up to 18 weeks. Later it can only be justified by medical problems with doctor approval.
I'd agree with Sjakihata that abortion is partly an international problem: if one country bans it, all it does is women moving to another country to get aborted. If the US were to ban abortions, you bet women wanting it anyway would head to Canada or Mexico. Same if only some States repel it.
Banning it in one country may increase some catholic "feel good about themselves" factor, but actually achieves nothing, or very little. Only the women with no way to travel won't get their abortion...
I also agree with Don that US is a bit specific, mainly because Congress never got the balls to make law about it. They definitly lack spine, guts, everything... I am not aware of any other countries not able to make a law on that topic. I would not complain about courts having to make a decision. Given the lack of Law, what the US courts shall have done?
That sure never helps to settle this issue.
Louis,
Ser Clegane
07-12-2005, 09:32
Back on topic...
Well said - if anybody would like to start a thread to compare various extremist groups, please feel free to do so, but please keep the discussion out of this thread.
Thanks :bow:
Ser Clegane
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 13:03
That is my own personal opinion as well, but that is not going to be acceptable to a rather substantial percentage of those opposed to abortion. And what is going to happen when they try to prosecute a doctor and woman for murder with their own definition of when life becomes viable? These same folks are also the ones that will scream until they are blue in the face that Schiavo was murdered by her husband. There are prosecutors, governors (Jeb) and even Presidents (Dubya) who are likely to agree with them no matter how preposterous their claims.
No, I'm sorry, but I'll take the side of restricting the powers of religious extremists almost every time. I consider Christian extremists just as dangerous as Islamic (perhaps more so, since there are more Christian extremists in close proximity.)
You would allow the abortion of fetuses you consider to be human lives, simply because you want to one-up the religious establishment? Because you're afraid if we outlaw abortion in the 9th month, then somebody might try to make the argument to restrict it earlier, you'll work to continue to see to it that 3rd term abortions are continued?
I just lost a LOT of respect for you. I thought you and I just disagreed on things but that we came from roughly the same moral foundation (no religious context implied). I can see I was deeply mistaken. You're a fundamentalist yourself, you know. You're a secular fundamentalist, and just as scary as any other kind.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 13:06
Less devestating tactics.. lol.
I think the various Inquisitions are the most infamous christian terrorists. ~:cheers:
Yep, that's right GC & Red.... Christian=Terrorist. I can feel the love around here, boy.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 13:09
Back on topic...
I also agree with Don that US is a bit specific, mainly because Congress never got the balls to make law about it. They definitly lack spine, guts, everything... I am not aware of any other countries not able to make a law on that topic. I would not complain about courts having to make a decision. Given the lack of Law, what the US courts shall have done?
That sure never helps to settle this issue.
Louis,
It's not that they have no spine, they're not allowed to. Anytime Congress has passed a law attempting to define abortion policy, the Courts have struck them down. If you want to call somebody spineless on this issue, it would be SCOTUS, who has allowed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to be the final arbiter on this issue.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
07-12-2005, 14:38
Not quite... If Congress was really, really feeling strong about this, they would amend the constitution. They're not even trying, just paying lip service for political gain.
They're not willing to do what it takes. Neither is the president.. Spineless.
Louis,
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-12-2005, 14:47
bmolson:
I'm sure that condom sales are alive and well in Indonesia.
However, the Catholic birthrate in the western World is a fraction of Muslim birthrate in most of the Islamic world. Catholic nations aren't exactly reknowned for their chastity:
I'm guessing one religious group goes in for contraception and abortion alot more than the other.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 16:08
Not quite... If Congress was really, really feeling strong about this, they would amend the constitution. They're not even trying, just paying lip service for political gain.
They're not willing to do what it takes. Neither is the president.. Spineless.
Louis,
Amen, brother.
Hm, lets look at facts here. When you abort you kill. You kill an organism. That organism is a human at early stage.
And why shouldn`t that be considered murder? At least you kill the potential for a life, perhaps a happy life.
That organism doesn`t suddenly become a human; so time limits seems a bit diffuse to me.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 17:15
Not quite... If Congress was really, really feeling strong about this, they would amend the constitution.
They would have to get a super majority to vote on the matter and I cant see that happening. Then it would have to pass two thirds of the states. The extremists on both sides wont let that happen.
Red Harvest
07-12-2005, 17:45
You would allow the abortion of fetuses you consider to be human lives, simply because you want to one-up the religious establishment? Because you're afraid if we outlaw abortion in the 9th month, then somebody might try to make the argument to restrict it earlier, you'll work to continue to see to it that 3rd term abortions are continued?
I just lost a LOT of respect for you. I thought you and I just disagreed on things but that we came from roughly the same moral foundation (no religious context implied). I can see I was deeply mistaken. You're a fundamentalist yourself, you know. You're a secular fundamentalist, and just as scary as any other kind.
Like I've said, I have no reason to trust the right on this issue. It is the same reason I distrust the left on gun control issues. Ironically, the same basic life/death argument is used by them to support their views on gun control.
As I've also said, I also consider this a more complex issue than presented, and it is a personal one, one that has a poor history of being handled reasonably by the state. As long as it is being used as a political football I will be opposed to most restrictions.
As for the "secular fundamentalist" label, I'm not really sure what that is. The only definitions I find of it in a search is that of far right wing Christians resorting to their traditional namecalling for those that oppose their agenda of merging church and state...yawn. Since "secular" supposedly rejects religion and religious consideration, I don't see how it fits me. I have Christian beliefs, however, I also believe in keeping a neutral secular govt. (and workplace.) I practice my religion on a personal level rather than trying to force my beliefs onto others in the workplace, govt., etc.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 17:49
Christians resorting to their traditional namecalling for those that oppose their agenda of merging church and state...yawn.
Where do you get the idea that this is what christains want. I find it hysterical.
Since "secular" supposedly rejects religion and religious consideration,
The founding fathers thought very dfferently. Everything should be considered. The fact that you want to remove religion intirely from government discourse is why your getting labled a secularist extremist. Thats not what the first amendment says.
Like I've said, I have no reason to trust the right on this issue. It is the same reason I distrust the left on gun control issues. Ironically, the same basic life/death argument is used by them to support their views on gun control.
And you trust the pro-abortion lobby?
As I've also said, I also consider this a more complex issue than presented, and it is a personal one, one that has a poor history of being handled reasonably by the state. As long as it is being used as a political football I will be opposed to most restrictions.
Ask yourself this question - are you for 3rd Trimester abortions - where if allowed to deliver the child the baby would be viable and able to live? If your for this late of an abortion - then you by default must also support the death penelty.
I speak from a little experience on this one since my son was born 7 weeks premature.
Many of those that say they are pro-life and anti-abortion are really not speaking of the first 12 weeks of pregency - some of the far right fundmentalistic individuals will say all abortions - but for the most part many would not be upset nor would they fight laws that allow the abortion only to occur by choice in the first trimester - its when it gets into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters that it because a major issue for many of us.
As for the "secular fundamentalist" label, I'm not really sure what that is. The only definitions I find of it in a search is that of far right wing Christians resorting to their traditional namecalling for those that oppose their agenda of merging church and state...yawn.
Do you believe in establishing certain constraints on human behavior based upon a moral code? If not your getting close to what a secular fundamentalist would be.
Since "secular" supposedly rejects religion and religious consideration, I don't see how it fits me. I have Christian beliefs, however, I also believe in keeping a neutral secular govt. (and workplace.) I practice my religion on a personal level rather than trying to force my beliefs onto others in the workplace, govt., etc.
However are you against establishing a constraint on abortion that would otherwise lead to a health and productive human being?
Blind support of a cause is fundmentalistic in its nature. Accusing the right of it, and doing so yourself - just has the writting of "fundmentalist" all over it.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 19:10
As for the "secular fundamentalist" label, I'm not really sure what that is. The only definitions I find of it in a search is that of far right wing Christians resorting to their traditional namecalling for those that oppose their agenda of merging church and state...yawn. Since "secular" supposedly rejects religion and religious consideration, I don't see how it fits me. I have Christian beliefs, however, I also believe in keeping a neutral secular govt. (and workplace.) I practice my religion on a personal level rather than trying to force my beliefs onto others in the workplace, govt., etc.
I got the term from the book "God's Politics", written by Jim Wallis, who's actually a Lefty Christian. He's an editor of the Sojourner (about as far Left as you can get in some regards) . His point was that among the Left, religion and religious beliefs have become so taboo, that regardless of our true belief system, we're all forced to pretend we are strict secularists.
As far as you being a Christian, only Christ knows the true answer to that. But if you're advocate allowing 3rd trimester elective abortions to score political points, cause you want to stick it to the right even though you think it's an actual baby, shame on you. That's the kind of extremism that this country can do without.
As I've also said, I also consider this a more complex issue than presented, and it is a personal one, one that has a poor history of being handled reasonably by the state. As long as it is being used as a political football I will be opposed to most restrictions.
If someone kills his/her own kids this is a personal problem? Why are people in jail for exactly that? Just because their children were a few days/weeks older?
Just tell me what is the huge difference between a baby one day before it´s birth and one day after? Do you think the brain just makes "plop" and begins to work when the baby sees the light? A baby often moves inside the womb(I thought we all knew that :help: ) and it can already be scared or happy from what I know.
I can understand people saying that abortion in the 1st trimester is ok, although I don´t think so myself, but supporting it to the last minute is just supporting murder.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-12-2005, 23:39
I'd like to address something Xiahou said earlier that I missed.
Originally Posted by Me
While I would advocate absolutely no abortion (except maybe to protect the mother and maybe incest and maybe rape) I would be pretty happy with "no unnecesary abortions after 14 weeks," given the political climate in the US right now.
Originally Posted by Xiahou
But again, as I laid out earlier, if you make an exception for rape, incest, or to protect the mother, what rational argument can someone make for elective abortions?
I am personally conflicted at that point. Certainly, there would be little political support for making no exceptions for rape, incest, and mother-protection. I don't really know sometimes I think "no exceptions!" while other times I am more conflicted. The rape/incest exception isn't a strong one, since it would be like punishing the child for the sins of the father. To protect the mother's life (not necesarily her "pyche" since that could be a big loophole) is a bit less clear - who's life is more valuable? I don't think anyone here can answer that definitively.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Like I've said, I have no reason to trust the right on this issue. It is the same reason I distrust the left on gun control issues. Ironically, the same basic life/death argument is used by them to support their views on gun control.
That's an interesting parallel. Personally I think I would accept more gun control as a trade-off for abortion being banned.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest a while back in the thread and slightly off topic but sorry mods I can't help it!
How many millions have been killed in the name of God? [...] I would be a fool to ignore what my fellow man will do in the name of religion.
You would be a fool to ignore what your fellow man will do in the name of a whole lot of other stuff, too.
Well Don, I'd much rather have no abortions- but my point was the fallback argument of abortion supporters always seems to come to rape and when the mother's life is endangered. So, since those are miniscule anyhow, I say sure- lets leave exceptions for that. Just ban it as an elective procedure. I don't think anyone can defend abortion as birth control.
Goofball
07-12-2005, 23:45
That's an interesting parallel. Personally I think I would accept more gun control as a trade-off for abortion being banned.
Make you a deal:
All abortions after 8 weeks banned, in exchange for gun control laws limiting private ownership of guns to only bolt action rifles (maximum 5 round mags) and shotguns.
:deal:
Make you a deal:
All abortions after 8 weeks banned, in exchange for gun control laws limiting private ownership of guns to only bolt action rifles (maximum 5 round mags) and shotguns.
:deal:
That's actually a good proposal. I like it.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-13-2005, 22:34
Make you a deal:
All abortions after 8 weeks banned, in exchange for gun control laws limiting private ownership of guns to only bolt action rifles (maximum 5 round mags) and shotguns.
I'm sure the NRA wouldn't be happy, and maybe a few patrons around here, but that doesn't sound too bad to me. Human lives > gun lives.
Where do I sign?
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 22:36
Yeah, I'd definitely say you're getting the better part of the deal, but I'd take the loss on this one. I'd sign on.
Steppe Merc
07-13-2005, 22:37
I'd support it. ~D
Though it would be difficult to try and collect all the guns everyone already owns...
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 22:39
No where near as dificult as you think. The FBI has a list of serial numbers they can trace each purchase by. So, pretty much any law abiding citizens would hand their guns in, as they wouldn't want to take the risk the FBI had their gun on a list.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-13-2005, 22:41
The major downside to this deal would be it would outlaw M1's. I want an M1 soooooo bad.
Human lives > gun lives.
Where do I sign?Certainly a compelling argument, but I'd have to think alot more on it than you guys. First, once you willingly give them up you're never going to get them back. 10 years down the road if the government changes its mind about abortion, do you think you'd get your guns back? Further, once you give the government a mandate to start seizing some guns, you have to worry about the slippery slope theory kicking in.
It's a silly proposition in the first place, but would I agree to it? I don't know. I can't help but think of someone holding a knife to someones throat promising you that once you drop your weapons we promise to let him go. ~D
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-13-2005, 23:31
This is true. I was in a "perfect world" mode. Must of been the just-home-from-work high I was on. ~D
~:handball:
Ironside
07-14-2005, 08:17
To protect the mother's life (not necesarily her "pyche" since that could be a big loophole) is a bit less clear - who's life is more valuable? I don't think anyone here can answer that definitively.
Easy, a motherless child vs a childless mother, both from a evolutionary and social viewpoint is the second alternative better.
Besides I suspect that it's not exactly common to the doctors to have the choise of saving the child, but kill the mother.
Usually it's more of the abort the baby or let both die type.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-14-2005, 16:50
Usually it's more of the abort the baby or let both die type.
Do you have anything to support this or are you speaking off the top of your head?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.