I don't believe God has a decisive role in human affairs. pretty much everything I see around me is the immidiate result of human action.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
That may sound like a cop out.
Printable View
I don't believe God has a decisive role in human affairs. pretty much everything I see around me is the immidiate result of human action.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
That may sound like a cop out.
You do see that :Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
a) I explicitly mentioned that I am not trying to discuss his actions
b) Your post has nothing to do with my post whatsoeverQuote:
(I am not trying to defend his actions here, the point has been discussed already. Just stating the fact)
...a misquote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Potentially. I read "disablility" and my senses were inflamed. I take offence at the various posters who have no problem with late term abortions when they target the disabled, but then aknowledge viability at that stage. To me sayign that a mentally retarded baby can and should be killed on a technicality 2 weeks before he/she is born while 2 seconds after birth it becomes immoral is a massive cop out. You (not you) say you shouldn't kill a viable normal baby at a late stage, but it is ok or understandable to kill a baby with downs syndrom at the same stage. Nonsense. Your belief system is corrupt and barbaric - in need of an audit
You know who you (not necessarilly you) are.
Sure it happens out of, as you call it, selfishness - but again you're on shallow ground there. I completely understand why a raped woman would want to have an abortion, how a 16 year old girl does not view pregnancy as God's birthday present and I completely understand why a family would want to abort a fetus who shows signs of chromosomal irregularities and or anatomical defects. I can understand that said parents are able to make the decision, which is probably never ever easy, based on the quality of life both for themselves and for the fetus - soon to be child. And I also understand that the only person capable of actually doing said procedure is a doctor, and not your friendly neighborhood cop.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I've said this before but I'm surprised at your hatred against the people doing the procedure and not against those who ask for it (in the literal sense). Morally it's just as bad, even if one of the two get's paid for it. I believe at least in the US the person who pays the killer for hire actually gets more jail time, or is at least just as guilty as the person wielding the gun or whatever. They don't let him or her off under the pretense that 'they'll live the rest of their lives in shame'.Quote:
Men like Tiller kill people for money. They have families, go to church, visit littler league games, crack jokes, wink at you when irony is in the air and decapitate and suction tens of thousands of unborn children with no remorse.
:balloon2:
I would be interested in any breakdown of how many of Dr. Tiller's patients were there because of damaged fetuses versus true "convenience" abortions. Interesting article here:
Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."
Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." [...]
A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.
Sounds like he was a hero, huh Lemur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It sounds like some people were there for reasons that were far more complicated than you are willing to admit, certainly. Why not crawl down off that high horse and actually address the points I have raised?
Also, didn't your mama raise you better than to quote the entirety of a long post only to add a single-sentence comment? She'd slap you silly for such bad posting etiquette.
This rather tallies with what I was expecting, and sadly proves my point. Underage rape victims, undiagnosed conjoined twins and threats to the mother's health. In the first case I don't believe abortion should be allowed, I'm sorry, I realise how incredibly hard that is for the mother but I can't ever condone it. In the second case one has to wonder how doctors do not stop such defects before eight months (Rory may have insight on this). In the final case, in the final case, where the children cannot survive and the mother's life is in danger I see only one option, which is the one she took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The question though, is how many of Tiller's patients should have never been in such a position.
Your point is that people should kill other people if they feel that they must and the law allows them to. Your point seems to be that Tiller was a defender of life. I won't entertain your equivocation here. You are an enabler and apologist of killers in this instance and are content to be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Pro-life doctors would perform an abortion to save the life of a mother.
TuffStuff, if you can bear to address "an enabler and apologist of killers" for a moment, you might want to unpack your statements there. "Pro-life doctors would perform an abortion to save the life of a mother?" Examples, please? Can you back this up, or is this you speaking from your gut? I've now read accounts of women who couldn't get already-dead fetuses removed from their bodies because doctors didn't want to do anything that even resembles abortion. I take it you know something the rest of us don't?
Also, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to those who demonize Christians: Dismissive, extremist rhetoric does not advance this conversation. If you are so certain that you have all of the answers to this problem, you should be able to articulate your reasoning without resorting to broad attacks sans logic.
I am speaking form the gut. Most pro-lifers that I know understand that you need to save the life of a woman. Most doctors that I know believe that saving lives is important. It stands to reason that if there was no other alternative but to let the woman die or to terminate a pregnancy that a choice would be made. Fortunately that situation rarely ever happens. By the time a pregnancy becomes life threatening it is either ectopic or the child is viable and can be birthed through cesarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Bringing the arguement forward in your opinion would condone the killing of the mentally retarded as a concession. You litterally condone the execution of the unfit as long as they are in the womb. I've seen you say as much. You don't hold the middle ground on this issue as long as you advocate eugenics.
Here, here! Well said Lemur.
TuffStuff, can I have some of whatever you're smoking, please? Go ahead, find the place where I've advocated, condoned or praised the abortion of retarded children. Please, find a quote. I can wait all year for it, 'cause it doesn't exist. But you get to searching, by all means.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Every example I've raised in this thread has to do with non-viable fetuses, something I know a little more about than you do, kid. I've lived through a miscarriage, have you? I've attended the birth of my own children, have you? Hmm? Frankly, I'd say I've experienced a lot more reality around pregnancy and childbirth than you have, so maybe you should chill out with the wild, baseless and emotional accusations. You seem to believe that making flailing ad hominems gives you some sort of moral standing. This is not the case.
Here are two questions I would like you to address without ducking or dodging:
(1) Your wife is pregnant. Yay! You make it past the critical three-month mark. Yay! At six months your baby is diagnosed with a terminal illness that guarantees he will die immediately after birth. Expensive and painful operations might prolong his life by a week. What should you do?
(2) Your wife is three months pregnant when she is diagnosed with terminal cancer. If she undergoes chemo, the fetus will certainly die, but your wife will have a 60% chance of survival. If she foregoes chemo she may die before giving birth. What should she do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The best I can say is that I swallowed poop in the womb, was being strangled by my umbilical cord and came out blue.
I remember you stating that you believe late term killing might be acceptable if they find a "serious problem". I took that to mean if there was brain damage, painful physical problems for the child, etc. Link 1, Link 2. Link 1 merely uses an atricle about killing children with downs etc as a rationale. Link 2 contains more of your personal confusion on the issue. I was under the impression that you were against late term abortions as birth control ONLY, but for them in the case of mental or physical defect. Am I incorrect in this assumption?
As for the 2 questions:
1) I would prolong his life by a week, because the week might turn into a month into a year into a "oh sorry about that, he's fine".
2) I would urge my wife to make up her own mind. The treatment would kill the child, but the chances that she would survive are legitimate. Either way I stand to lose everything, so the ball is in her court. In that instance it is a fair call. Luckily that is an absurd minority of cases. I have always said that the mothers life needs to be preserved if that is what the mother would prefer, I don't dodge that one. I know a number of mothers who would die for their child, but others who would kill their children if they could save $100 on their car insurance.
Now that I've answered, what would you say to those questions?
I apoligize if my post was more ad hominem and less an attack on your position. I believe you to be a decent and reasonable person from our interactions on these boards over the years. In muddy waters even the best people can do and say things that they regret, and it seems that the water is muddy for you here; you are gettign out on the wrong side of the pool (to complete an analogy).
I never said it was "acceptable." You're inferring.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Well, both of your links lead to the same post for me. Maybe there's something wrong on my end.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
"Mental or physical defect" is waaaaaaaay too vague for me. Polydactyly, for example could be considered a physical defect, as could baldness. (This is why codifying a sane policy would be so difficult; the law is a blunt instrument.)
My main concern is with non-viable fetuses. This is where I get conflicted. As I said earlier in the thread, I wouldn't wish a short, painful life on my dog; why would I wish it on my own flesh and blood? There are conditions that are incompatible with life. Some are detected late. These are the situations that make me hedge.
Question 1 would depend on the exact diagnosis. If there was, say, a 30% chance that the child might survive and thrive, I'd seriously consider taking the pregnancy to term. If there were no realistic hope for more than a week, I'd abort.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Question 2 is even worse than I made out, since no doctor will administer chemo if he knows the woman is pregnant, so my wife would need to go through an abortion and then begin chemo. Devastating all around. As you say, the ball would be in her court. The only lucky thing is that I don't believe cancer can be transmitted to a fetus, can it?
As I said, I oppose late-term abortion as a rule. But I'd have to be a willfully blind person to ignore the cases that are troublesome. Frankly, when you get into medical decisions of life and death the lines can be much more blurry than we like to admit. And well-meaning policies can result in absurd cruelties.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Example: Doctors can be very sparing with painkillers due to national problems with addiction and dependency. But I remember when my father was dying, having to argue repeatedly with doctors who didn't want to give hi more morphine because they'd been schooled in "just say no." Which doesn't apply even slightly to a dying Marine, thanks very much. Just give him the ******** morphine while he dies, you idiot. Dead people don't have addictions.
I think it's the most natural thing in the world to look for exceptions and problems with a position you hold. Truth and reality are all about particulars and details.
Oh please, cut the crap language. All it does is make you look like a loony, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
it also obscures your meaning and makes me use more time reading your posts
Actually, forcing eveyrone else to use your preferred euphemisms makes you look Orwellian. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
It's like using all sorts of different names for socialist, conservatives, liberals, etc. When they get silly enough, and they're used too much, it starts getting ridiculous and loony. All in good quantity, I say.
Sometimes I would agree with you. But in this particular case, you're trying to win the argument by playing semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Assume a baby is born on June 1st at 0100. If the doctor sticks a scalpel into the base of its skull at 0101, you'd agree with us that he killed the baby. But if he inserted the scalpel at 0059, you're arguing we should change the terminolgy to performed a procedure on a mass of tissue. Tuff is saying, no, he still killed. And now, to boot, you're claiming he's playing linguistics games because he won't adopt your euphimism. :dizzy2:
The whole abortion issue turns on this very point. If you believe a fetus magically becomes a baby by popping out of the vagina, then you wouldn't use the term killed. But for those of us who believe no special physical transformation in the child happens pre-to-post birth, then the term "killed" is very apropos.
It actually wasn't an argument. It was simply me getting tired of word-swaps, the fact that people who change words like this all the time are seen as loonies, and, finally, because I had to use more time reading his posts, by figuring out whether he actually meant killing as in "abortion", or killing is in "killing"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Also, there's the whole "being polite to others"-thingy. While I may not have anything against my sister(she's had an abortion) being called a killer, murderer or whatever, it may be a sore point with others. For someone who considers a 3-week old fetus a human being, you should certainly understand that such things can upset people.
You appear to be speaking in circles. We should refrain from using the term "kill" because it might hurt the sensibilities of people who "made a choice to remove some extraneous tissue"? If all they did was "make a choice...", why would they have any sensibilities on the matter to offend? I'm sorry your sister went through such a horrific ideal, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my statements, just to avoid hurting her feelings, especially since I presume its an ordeal she chose with full knowledge of what she was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you unilateraly define the vocabulary for the debate. Words matter. We view it as taking a human life, which is why we say kill. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. I don't use the word kill to poke a finger in your eye... if that was my intent, I would refer to you as pro-abortion, not the pro-choice tag you prefer. I find it mildly irritating when people refer to me as anti-choice, but such is their right.
And where did the 3 weeks come from? The good doctor was performing elective abortions in the 3rd trimester.
At what point are the mass of cells a baby? When it can be born and survive with medical intervention?, When it can safely survive by itself without medical intervention or at the point of conception?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Assume a couple conceive at June 1st at 0100. If the husband withdraws at 0101, you'd agree he was responsible for the conception. But if he withdrew at 0059 then the stomach/tissue/mouth is the new death camp as millions are denied their right to life.
That would be a big worry as Caesaren wouldn't be alive then by that definition...Quote:
The whole abortion issue turns on this very point. If you believe a fetus magically becomes a baby by popping out of the vagina, then you wouldn't use the term killed. But for those of us who believe no special physical transformation in the child happens pre-to-post birth, then the term "killed" is very apropos.
Read it again, Don. I didn't say "of people who", but I was referring to people with relatives(or friends I guess) who have had an abortion. And believe it or not, they exist! And they might not even be fond of abortion either! But, believe it or not, they might not enjoy having their close relative called a murderer every single day! Shocking!Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Again, it's irrelevant really, but it's that "being polite to others"-thingy.
But again, as for myself, supporting abortion as I do, I could not care less. All my sister did was remove a lump of cells, and it was her choice.
It doesn't bother me any more than say, swapping "socialist" and "hippie", or "conservative" and "inbred" does. However, when repeated, it gets tiring and makes me think that the person who uses said terms consistently is just some loony retarded I won't consider paying any attention to. Which explains why I've only bothered to read half of TuffStuff's posts in this thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I actually prefer the term "pro-abortion". I've only used the term "pro-choice" because that's what you silly english-speakers use, in norwegian the term is abortion-supporter(roughly translated). The word "choice" is the property of the conservatives here, I don't think it's legal for us socialist heathens to use it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
A criminal is a criminal because he or she has broken the law and committed a crime. This man broke no law in his actions, therefore he did not commit a crime, therefore he is not a criminal.Calling him a criminal is 1. untrue and 2. an attack used to lower the guy because you have a different opinion from him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I used to hold that one could put life at viability. After further study and reflection, I realized this was a fallacy. A 3 month old infant cannot exist on its own any more than a -3 month infant can. (Age 0 being the moment of birth).Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I've come to hold a much stronger pro-life position over the years, especially with the birth of my daughters. I hold that life begins at the moment of conception, and that the only valid reason for intentionally reason for terminating a pregnancy is to protect the life or long-term physical health of the mother.
Your question is something of a non-sequiter, as you're asking about coitus interruptus, where no conception actually transpired. It has little to do with what we're discussing.
Luckily for me, I don't hold that definition. I DON'T hold that something magical transpires in one's trip through the birth canal, which is why I am so utterly opposed to 3rd trimester abortions particularly.Quote:
That would be a big worry as Caesaren wouldn't be alive then by that definition...
Mental health is as important as physical health.
But only in extreme cases will mental health issues not have surfaced by the 16th week - that's 4 months for God's sake!
Yes, having children does make someone loose their detachment and form more emotional points of view, but a fertilised egg isn't a healthy delivered baby. Roughly 1/4 will spontaneously abort in early pregnancy, some before those not closely monitoring themselves are aware they were pregnant.
As an aside, how late are we talking here? I personally think that excluding developmental defects that were picked up late unless the mother's life and physical health are in danger after 24 weeks is an absolute contraindication, and I'd want a damn good reason why it's taken so long probably after 12 weeks.
~:smoking:
Abortion is not nice, but it's a necessary evil.
If TuffStuff, Don and others are willing to adopt, raise and take care of every baby that should have been aborted for one valid reason (this include, "not having the means to raise a child", "not wanting to raise a genetically deficient baby", and anything of that standard) or another, then I say yes, we can get rid of abortion (except when the physical health of the mother is threatened).
As long as they don't, then I don't care about christian morals.
The murderer is a typical case of religious nutjob. To protect his "faith" (ie. his bastardized understanding of religion), he's willing to trample the very basics morals of christianity. Well done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Two of my five syblings are adopted. In reality, they are my favorite syblings. My mother would adopt more if more than 5 children wouldn't cause my fathers head to explode.
I expect to adopt the larger ratio of my children and my girlfriend is on board
Isn't there a shortage of children in the West as compared to the amount of people wanting to adopt them? Also, what about orphanages? I'd rather live in an orphanage and have some kind of life than never live at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
It isn't about the woman. It's about the child.
That's valid? :dizzy2: Abortion as birth control all the way then!Quote:
(this include, "not having the means to raise a child"
Really, if you have sex and don't have the means to raise a child, there are still more options for you. You can give it to a relative to raise, give it up for adoption, or maybe own up to your own selfish actions and raise it yourself.
Don't raise it. Adoption. Use it.Quote:
"not wanting to raise a genetically deficient baby"
Really, don't want to raise a "genetically deficient baby"? Have you ever met a person with special needs? Most of them actually enjoy living, you know.
The pro-life group is not made up entirely of Christians, you know. And when it is, many of those Christians are not pro-life because of their religion. My Catholicism would only effect me not getting an abortion if I was a woman who was pregnant. My secular reasons for being pro-life are the reasons why I believe that there are many circumstances in which abortion should be illegal.Quote:
As long as they don't, then I don't care about christian morals.
Uhm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Having sex is a "selfish action"...?
You have sex, you deal with the consequences. If you don't have the means to raise a child and don't want to give it up for adoption...your fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It is about timing and definitions. Your own quote wanted to lampoon the semantics around this debate. That post-natal abortion is defined murder while pre-natal is defined as a cell scraping. (Edit Note: I totally agree with your stance, on this part)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
My own point is that is that the other end of the time scale conception. If conception is the moment a human being starts, does that make the avoidance of it some sort of tragic event? (Edit Note: But the logic of it does beget the other end of the scale, and I'm being tongue in cheek... or something in cheek)
=][=
IMDHO I think it is up to women to decide about abortion for themselves, just like guys get to decide about vasectomies.
When all us blokes are ready to have a group of women on the internet decide if our 'nads should be chopped off or not then we can have an equally weighted argument in deciding women's reproductive strategies.
You know, that's just the thing. Most of us don't have any problem with a woman deciding her own reproductive health. The problem is that we believe that has crossed the line. It isn't about the woman any more - there's something else there now. So why should only women have the right to decide when they aren't the only ones being effected? Or, for that matter, the ones being effected the most?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The whole "women should decide" argument is a fallacy. If anything, we should have a plebiscite of fetuses and infants - but since that is impossible, it becomes a decision for everybody.
...And that's precisely why we invented abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And you are aware, that even if you ban abortion, that fetus will still be aborted, right?
The consequence would be an abortion, which I am perfectly (un?)happy to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.
For the hurt feelings of the Gods of soul-equipped kitchen utensils or the Gods of soul-equipped lumps of cells, I do not care.
Why the focus on conception?
How is that any less an arbitrary cutoff point than anything else?
Prison for life with the bastard.
Such an attitude disturbs me and I think it's in poor taste to compare a pregnancy with a kitchen accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
1) If you want to be a man, then you'll let the mother take the decision. "It" is not in your belly, but in the belly of the woman. In the end it's her decision, not yours. No, forcing her to do what you want her to do is not = being a man, it's being selfish and cruel. If she choses to keep the child and not to give it away for adoption, then you'll be a man by either raising your child yourself or financially support the mother;
2) Ask any couple that is pregnant for a couple of weeks to describe it. They won't call it "lumps of cells". Don't be so insensitive and don't act like there are no emotions whatsoever involved when talking about a pregnancy, being it wanted or unwanted.
3) It's not so easy as you make it sound.
So a pregnancy is at 20 weeks. The man wants it and always wanted it.
Woman decides to dump the man and run off with somone she's just met. She has an abortion.
Who here is being selfish and cruel?
I feel you illustrated very well how that, although both men and women are equal, the man has no say at any point in the pregnancy as to what happens, although has to deal with the consequences of the choice the women makes.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature :shrug:
If the woman choses not to abort the child, then the man will have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it can be perceived as unfair, but the third party involved, namely the child, is innocent and needs to be taken care of by both parents.
Or do you suggest that there would come a legal possibility that allows the man to make a written statement in which he writes down that he wants either an abortion (and is willing to cover half of the expenses) or an adoption and if the woman choses not to, then by law he has not to take any responsability? For the sake of equality?
And if the woman wants an abortion and he doesn't, that she could be forced to give birth and the man can have the child with no rights whatsoever for the woman? Also for the sake of equality?
It feels... wrong.
I think you demonstrated the basic problem with elective abortion. A man owns his sperm, fine, a woman owns her eggs, fine. Actually, this isn't quite so clear cut, there have been cases of women using frozen eggs from their ex's, which then makes the father liable for child support. It also means he has a child, it's the closest thing to a rape baby a man can have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
However, I digress. A feotas is 50% the woman, 50% the man. As you can't kill one half without the other, how can the feotas be viewed as simply part of the woman's body. From my perspective it can only be viewed as a seperate entity, and therefore the woman has custodianship of that human being until she gives birth.
What she does not have in ownership, any more than once the baby is born.
Bad analogy. You're not killing anything by putting out a kitchen fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
We invented abortion so you can be irresponsible and get away with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented abortion so that men could rape and seduce women without having to take responsibility for the resultant bastards. After all, the original method of abortion was a solid kick to the belly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yay, better than nature!:wall:
Considering that we have been practicing abortions for thousands of years, I doubt that it was invented specifically for the reason you say - or, rather, that you can verify when the first abortion was practiced and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Abortion should not be used as birth control just because you don't feel like having a child. Has our society really become that selfish?
Fortunately we have divorce, so you don't need to murder to get out of an unhappy marriage.Quote:
And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.
As well:
Quote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented abortion so that men could rape and seduce women without having to take responsibility for the resultant bastards. After all, the original method of abortion was a solid kick to the belly.
Yay, better than nature!
Epic fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Because I'm right? Pretty sure you can find it in Plato.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Face facts, abortion is as old as pregnancy and mostly it is done for selfish reasons.
Who's talking about "the first abortion"? I'm talking about modern abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Says who? You? Who cares about your opinion anyway? What matters is the opinion of the woman in question. And if she wants to get an abortion because she doesn't feel like getting a kid, well, that's all good and intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And I'm (not) sorry to say; the law isn't going to change anytime soon. And even if it does, women will still continue to take abortion. That's just not anything you or anyone else can change. Sorry.
The only thing you can do, if you want to stop abortions, is to preach the gospel of safe sex and birth control. There really isn't anything else you can do that will have any real effect.
No, but you need abortion to avoid being stuck with a kid instead of getting an education/working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
So, basically you're selfish and you think everyone else is worse, so abortion should be allowed because people are irresponsible?
"Who cares about your opinion anyway?"
Real mature, if you're so arrogant why should we care about yours?
People are irresponsible and selfish because they want careless, good and pleasurable sex? Hah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You shouldn't. Which is why I said you shouldn't. The only opinion that matters, is the opinion of the pregnant woman. Why? Because that's the opinion that decides whether there will be an abortion or not. If she wants an abortion, there will be an abortion. No matter what you say. No matter what the law say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
All you can do, is try to make life either harder or easier for her.
And as I said, if you want to stop abortions, the only thing you can do is to preach about condoms.
Says who? You? Who cares about your opinion anyway? What matters is the opinion of the child in question. And if he/she wants to commit suicide because he doesn't feel like existing, well, that's all fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Just because someone will do something regardless of it being illegal doesn't mean it should be legal. Serial killers, for example, will murder regardless of the law.
In short, I don't give a damn what the woman or the father of the child want. I care about the child, because out of those three there is only one that can't defend its own rights.
We can always do both.Quote:
The only thing you can do, if you want to stop abortions, is to preach the gospel of safe sex and birth control.
Babysitting. Adoption. There are alternatives, why are you ignoring them?Quote:
No, but you need abortion to avoid being stuck with a kid instead of getting an education/working.
Can't you understand once and for all that if the woman wants an abortion there will be an abortion no matter the laws? Is it so hard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
One day the guy who starts all these abortion threads on forums is going to be shot. 'bout time too.
That would result in a gun control thread :bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
No, that's not true. If a woman is determined she will have one, but if you made it illegal there would be fewer overall. People would be more careful, and many people would just accept the pregnancy; have the child and then either raise it or put it up for adoption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
You mean Lemur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
You always get a vote before the abortion problem even comes up, if you can't restrain yourself, you get these sorts of problems. Having sex is not a basic human right or anything like that. You know what you are getting into and if you don't it's still your own fault unless you got raped.
"Fewer" means more than zero and a single woman bleeding herself to death because abortion is illegal is still too much to be accepted, my two cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Come on Andres, I do not recognise my words in the reading you gave them. What of the principle of charity?
The pregnancy is not compared to a kitchen accident. What is compared is the meaning of 'facing consequences'. The comparison serves to show that 'facing consequences' does not equal passively undergoing one's fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Passively undergoing consequences is slavish. Active acceptance of consequences, on the contrary, is what separates the men from the boys. An abortion is not trivial. Real men do not drop of their girlfriend at the clinic in between visits to the dvd rental and the liquor store. Instead, they accept and deal with the full consequence of being an adult, and of having sex.
Far from forcing anybody into anything, my very convinction that the mother alone can decide on the integrity of her body explains the fierceness of my abortion stance.Quote:
1) If you want to be a man, then you'll let the mother take the decision. "It" is not in your belly, but in the belly of the woman. In the end it's her decision, not yours. No, forcing her to do what you want her to do is not = being a man, it's being selfish and cruel. If she choses to keep the child and not to give it away for adoption, then you'll be a man by either raising your child yourself or financially support the mother;
Precisley because I believe abortion is not a trivial matter, I describe it as 'being a man, and accepting the consequences'.Quote:
2) Ask any couple that is pregnant for a couple of weeks to describe it. They won't call it "lumps of cells". Don't be so insensitive and don't act like there are no emotions whatsoever involved when talking about a pregnancy, being it wanted or unwanted.
Human embryos are lots of things. Precious and sacred. But not equipped with a soul. On this last bit, opinion differs. Those who believe a fertilized egg is endowed with a soul, will have an absolute stance on abortion. Those who don't, must regard abortion in light of many conflicting interests.
On the other hand, you have the healthy and viable, or near viable, feoti being aborted at far too high a rate as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
Whatever you do people will do stupid things (and back-alley abortions are idiotic), either way you get tragedy. The question is whether you try to reduce it to the absolute minimum possible, knowing that will never be zero, or you can make the tragedy socially acceptable and legally licensed.
Currently we allow, under law, the snuffing out of what are quite clealy human lives, not cancers in a woman's womb.
I understand this position, and respect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
But I think it is an unnecessary stumbling block. I do not (and can not) understand the mind of god. I do not know if god exists. I do not know when a soul is attached to a body. I do not knows if "soul" exists.
However, I must decide when "Life" exists, because I am a member of society, and a sworn officer of a government. The first duty of Society and Government is the protection of the Life of its members, then the Liberty of its members.
Thirty years ago, I decided defendable "Life" (id est: life I would have a duty to protect and defend) began when breathing started. And ended when breathing stopped. Then ironically-named LIFE magazine published those famous in-utero photos of embryos and fetuses, and "preemies" started surviving their early births more often, and artificial breathing machines prolonged people's lives, and some of them survived formerly-death-dealing trauma...
The "when defendable Life began and ended" decision got blurred. But my obligation to defend life didn't go away. Medico's started defining death as a permanent cessation of brain activity (assuming a heart-lung machine had already taken over breathing and heartbeat). If true, then the opposite end of the spectrum - the beginning of life, would be when brain activity measureably begins. Somewhere around week 14 after conception, the brain starts sparking, measureably, according to my reading.
So: that's the line-in-the-sand for me - the female "owns" that lump-of-cells for 90 days, to do with whatever she decides is right. After that, society has an obligation, a duty, to protect and defend that once-a-lump-of-cells-now-a-citizen-with-a-right-to-life. A right equal to the female's same right.
That is debatable, the abortion rates are lower now in Sweden than it was when abortion was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You never considered that the stance for most abortinists are adhering to is to reduce it to the absolute minimum possible, knowing that will never be zero and at the same make the tragedy socially acceptable and legally licensed?
Just like there are no Irish women who get an abortion, right? And people call socialism a utopia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There are no official number on how many abortions performed in Ireland each year, being illegal and all, but I've seen estimates vary between 6000-10.000 per year, on a total population of a little under 6 million. The number of abortions in Norway last year was 13.000-ish on a population of just under 5 million. So... Banning abortion seems to cut the number of abortions roughly in half.
Banning abortion doesn't stop people having them. Especially not in the US, with a large pro-abortion group. Abortion is as simple as taking a pill these days, and that pill won't be hard to distribute illegally. And it's not very hard to take a trip to mexico or canada either, countries who will be more than willing to perform abortions on american women.
Thinking that you have a choice between having abortions or not is an illusion. The only choice you have, is between making abortions harder or easier, and making it available to the entire population, or just the ones with money.
As I've said, if you want abortions to stop, the only thing you can do is spread condoms, birth control pills and morning after pills. Anything else is utopia.
Most countries that ban abortion are also behind on sex education, so the figures are not that reliable. For obvious reasons the two go together.
Now, sex education is important but you, like the UK government, seem to focus only on contraception. This has ben shown not to work in the UK, at all. It makes sense really, a spotty sixteen yea-old kid is most likely to sex the first time drunk, so he won't use a condom. He probably doesn't know how either, because all he did in sex-ed was giggle.
Thing is, you don't have to have sex when you meet someone you like. Over here promiscuity, casual sex etc. are linked to alchohol comsumption among teenagers. They're stupid, they get pregnant. It's then a question of how stupid they are as to whether they work out they actually are pregnant or not.
The problem in the UK is people just chuck condoms at kids, and everyone else. You are right that banning abortion will not stop all abortions, however the current threshold is 24 weeks, which is far too high, it should drop by six weeks at least.
Currently the attitude to abortion in the UK is becoming increasingly casual, this is not a good thing.
In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted or difficult pregnancies, no unhealthy children and no abortion. We will almost certainly never achieve that, but it's what I'll always aim for.
Oh, and for the record the Morning-After Pill basically induces a miscarriage, it's not actually contraception.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. And I am very sorry to hear that Adrian intends to kill me. It's been a good life, though, and I've enjoyed my time on this Earth, so I die with no regrets.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
In fairness, he said "shot", not killed. Perhaps he intends to offer you an ounce of fine Dutch liquor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This is a myth. Teenagers don't account for the highest number of abortions, older women do. linky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
As you can see, there are almost twice as many abortions performed by women aged 20-24 than there are for women age 15 to 19(27,4 to 15,4 per 1000 women). Women in their late twenties also get more abortions, while women in their early thirties get about the same number of abortions as teenagers.
For the record, I was drunk as hell(who isn't?) my first time. And I used a condom. Actually would've lost my virginity a couple of months earlier(also drunk), but I didn't have sex because I didn't have a condom at the time(I've had 3 condoms in my wallet at all times since then...).
I was always under the impression that sex-ed was first rate in the UK. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
To be honest, I meant to say that since all Internet abortion threads across the world look the same they are probably all started by one and the same guy as well. Then I remembered Charles de Gaulle's famous words: 'One does not shoot a lemur.' Let it be known that Adrian II respects his classics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hmmmmmm...
Ok, so I will share this with you other orghas.
1. I had a polish girlfriend some years ago... Don't generalize, she came from a wealthy family and was in Sweden to study at our finest school. Anyway, she got pregnant... She did not want the child, as she was in the middle of her studies and had no way to support the child... I... Well, what I thought isn't important, it's her desicion.
Anyway, she told me she "knew this doctor in Poland"... I then told her she could have an abortion in Sweden in a regular hospital,
POINT BEING: This abortion was gonna happen one way or the other. I VERY MUCH prefer it to happen in a hospital than on some kitchen table.
2. I had sex with an Austrian girl, and she got pregnant (condom burts or something). She did not want the kid with me, I did not want the kid with her.
She had an abortion without my knowledge... I didn't even know she had been pregnant till after.
I must say, I much prefered the abortion choice...
If abortion was out of the question there would be 2 very unhappy mothers and one father who couldnt pay enough to pay for them.
As it is, we have 3 people who have happy families, or are about to.
As a sidenote: My GF just got pregnant (love of my life contrary to the others).
I know some people will see this as 2 murders having been comited... I see it as 3, or 6 people having a happy life. 9 if you count the kids.
Oh, and also, I dont really see abortion as murder. Much the same way as I dont see having a hamburger as murder, or wanking as murder, or chopping down a tree as murder.
those against abortions should realise that a tree has more spiritual life than a couple of weeks old fetus. Do you cry everytime you see a piece of paper?
Gun meet foot...enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Nature failed us? Who or what, exactly, determined that sex is to be enjoyed without reproduction? Who are you to say nature failed and that your own selfishness is a better way to determine things? Don't kid yourself. Many in this thread support abortion so they can selfishly dodge the consequences of their actions.Quote:
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.
I am disgusted.
CR
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Reproduction is irrelevant, sex is for pleasure.
The Texas facility is now closing permanently.
Comments in this thread give me more fuel to fight this blight. Some of your views disgust me and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I can assure you, the feeling is mutual :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, that's what nature intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant! :2thumbsup:
Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.
That's what we humans do; we use our imagination to fix nature's mistakes.
I would argue we break nature, and particually in removing the reproductive element from sex. You could argue the other things you listed increase the chance of humanities survival, but casual abortion reduces it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So you're broken the biological imperative. As an atheist you can't appeal to anything higher than the "natural", so anything that frustrates nature is bad; especially if it frustrates the survival of our species.
We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Hence, abortion makes our lives more enjoyable and better.
Also, who said I was an atheist? Atheism means that I've made and choice and care about it, while I belong in the "could not even care for a second about such nonsense I can't do anything about anyway"-group.
Are you being serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If so, are you talking about late-term abortions or abortions before the 12th week?
In case of the former, do you think a late term abortion is no problem, even if it's done just because you did want to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy and you didn't have time in your busy schedule for something as trivial as an early abortion?
Well spoken!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Do people who prefer 'natural' sex abstain from the use of contraceptives like the pill or condoms too?
And what of peridocal abstinence. Is that natural? Or is counting the days already 'unnatural'?
And what of 'no sex before marriage'? Marriage is a recent invention. Therefore 'no sex before it' is unnatural too.
I also suggest that people 'accept the consequences' of running really fast and refuse to see a doctor in case of tripping over real bad.
Unlike many other animals, but like several, humans have sex as a means of social bonding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla