Abortion page 122

3075 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by basicbasic:

I believe they have finally made a male contraceptive pill, this should greatly reduce the unintended pregnancies if the male and female are protecting themselves while having sex.

There are a bunch of options for males already. And if I had to chose between a condom or a pill that messes with my hormone and possibly results in a whole bunch of side effects, guess what I’ll choose?
I once heard of a chip that is implanted under your skin that will basically make you infertile for a few months. That honestly sounded interesting to me. Not sure whether it’s already available, though.

I’m almost certain its available for females, not sure about men though.

I’m talking about a pill without the bad side effects btw.

So you are talking about a fairy tale.

There is quite the difference between a fairy tale and a technology in the near future, saying that this new technology is a fairy tale is like saying that it will be a fairy tale if we can invent a safe hydrogen based car. There are already prototypes, its just making sure its 100% safe.

Not even the pill for women is free of bad side effects and that one has been available for quite a while now.

We’re talking about the male ones.

 
Flag Post

And what makes you think that developing a pill for men to become infertile for as long as they take them will be so much simpler?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by basicbasic:
. There are already prototypes, its just making sure its 100% safe.

bb, there is no such thing as 100% safe when it comes to drugs. The fact that ppl can die from eating certain foods or being stung by a bee should give ya a clue that taking a drug to alter a natural bodily function—as EPR points out—can be fraught w/ negative effects.

Our bodies are a marvel of a whole lot of “chemistry working in concert”. A lot of illness,,both physical & mental,,are a result of “bad” chemisty. Adding “foreign” chemicals can have side affects that aren’t immediately deductible…even tho harsh criteria tests for FDA approval have been met. "For instance:http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=thalidomide+babies&qpvt=thalidomide+babies&;FORM=IGRE is something that happened many years back.

Here “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States never licensed thalidomide for general use; some of the birth defects caused by thalidomide in the United States were results of the drug being obtained from other countries.17 However, samples had been distributed to a number of physicians as part of a clinical trial, in which 20,000 patients in the United States received thalidomide.18

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
. There are already prototypes, its just making sure its 100% safe.

bb, there is no such thing as 100% safe when it comes to drugs. The fact that ppl can die from eating certain foods or being stung by a bee should give ya a clue that taking a drug to alter a natural bodily function—as EPR points out—can be fraught w/ negative effects.

Our bodies are a marvel of a whole lot of “chemistry working in concert”. A lot of illness,,both physical & mental,,are a result of “bad” chemisty. Adding “foreign” chemicals can have side affects that aren’t immediately deductible…even tho harsh criteria tests for FDA approval have been met. "For instance:http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=thalidomide+babies&qpvt=thalidomide+babies&FORM=IGRE is something that happened many years back.


Here “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States never licensed thalidomide for general use; some of the birth defects caused by thalidomide in the United States were results of the drug being obtained from other countries.17 However, samples had been distributed to a number of physicians as part of a clinical trial, in which 20,000 patients in the United States received thalidomide.18

Fine I’ll give you a point of that one ._., besides a huge amount of potential side effects averted by proper use of the drug and I mean very proper. But you are right there.

 
Flag Post

bb, I don’t know where ya live…but here in America, when we get ads on TV touting this or that drug, ya should hear some of the potential side effects,,,,some of which include death.

Instead of “the pill”, I support REVERSIBLE vasectomies

 
Flag Post

Hahaha! So it finally comes out. Planned Parenthood is trying to allow post-birth abortion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Hahaha! So it finally comes out. Planned Parenthood is trying to allow post-birth abortion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

At no point did she endorse post-birth abortion, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
And that whole point seems very hypothetical to me. I’d like to see some statistics that show how many botched abortions result in a living newborn. I mean, that could only happen in a late term abortion, because in a regular one the foetus is not able to live on its own outside the womb.
But thanks for providing a perfect example of people asking such hypothetical questions in order to make this organisation look bad, because they can’t come up with valid criticism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
rel="nofollow">http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

So do you just not read the actual article, or do you not understand that the title may be biased and/or misleading on purpose in order to get views?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Hahaha! So it finally comes out. Planned Parenthood is trying to allow post-birth abortion.

link

So do you just not read the actual article, or do you not understand that the title may be biased and/or misleading on purpose in order to get views?

Flip a coin, tenco.
It can be either…OR BOTH.
This seems to be rather typical for him.

But, to address the article & the video.
Yes, in no way was there ever CONFIRMATION that PP endorses postpartum//postnatal “killing”.
The woman made it very clear that such decisions should be w/ the woman and her abortion provider (doctor).

“Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.”

Other than that, she gave me a fucking headache.
She certainly either didn’t understand the questions (not that hard to fo),,,,
or she was doing some weird form of “stone-walling”.
Either way, she was a piss-poor representative for PP.

Too bad jhco doesn’t know how to PROPERLY make an effort to SUPPORT what he throws up (kinda like diarrhea-of-the-mouth he accuses some of us of having) on the board for us to gobble up as being “all true”.

Here is that FEDERAL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was referenced by the woman. It didn’t appear she was not willing to operate w/in its boundaries

Since this law is already “on the book”, Florida must be proposing a law much for “restrictive”.
And, such a law can have components in it that have “overlapping” effect on other areas of already LEAGALLY established abortion rights.

This then becomes a case where Florida could pursue these UN-Constitutional laws until such time that they make it to the Supreme court to be overturned. A little, short-term restriction is better than none for these guys.

Interestingly enough is how much effort they are putting into saving what, as EPR points out, has to be a very, VERY small number of such abortions.

 
Flag Post

I feel this argument about abortion will never find a conclusion so therefore I will keep my opinion short. I am pro-choice. I believe under certain circumstances a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have a baby. Obviously if a woman is a victim of rape and later to be found pregnant she defiantly has the right to choose, she did not willingly try to have any type of sexual intercourse at all, so why should we force her to have the baby? If the couple are less fortunate in terms of financial support then again the woman has the right to choose, it’s unfair if both the parents and the child/children can’t be able to pay for the bill and other necessary essentials because in the end there is no winner there.

Now I do not believe that people should abuse this choice, it’s pathetic if people want to satisfy their sexual needs and face no consequence if they simply get the fetus aborted every time the female becomes pregnant.

 
Flag Post

Why are we worrying about the one sperm that makes it instead of the millions of innocent souls of the sperm that don’t make it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MistsLlort:
Originally posted by thecartm:

Why are we worrying about the one sperm that makes it instead of the millions of innocent souls of the sperm that don’t make it?

Because that one sperm fertilized an egg and has become a zygote which is life. Sperm are usually recycled by the body’s natural processes and are not considered sentient living beings. They are just sex cells. A zygote however forms into a human fetus and eventually a baby.

Good explanation, I suppose… The answer was fairly obvious lol

 
Flag Post

Some people seem to think that humans are the most important creatures in this world. A lil’ arrogant of them if you ask me.
Anyways, we are surrounded by death: bacteria, and other living organisms are constantly living and dying at extremely shorter life cycles. Even shorter than the life given to a fetus or embryo before it is aborted. People seem to think that every fetus will have purpose in this life, which is utterly untrue. Most people in this world don’t live in this world with any real purpose or impact on the world, and their lives are inconsequential in the grander scheme of human progress. Some just seek life’s pleasures then die, some seek to improve humanity, some seek to improve the earth and it’s inhabitants, and some just go through the rigors of life without any real direction and die. Whatever they think that the purpose of human life is up to them to define. Not some radical religious viewpoint on life where they keep jamming this idea down our throat that every human life is sacred, be it pre-human or not. Although, they don’t seem to give the same courtesy to other living organisms either. Look at how they disregard the purpose of plants, and animals that give us sustenance and life, yet if it’s human then we must, no matter what, no reason required, protect that life at all cost. Although, the hypocrisy of it all is dumbfounding, just look at how easily we go to war with others, and kill countless people without even giving it another thought. So this pointless fetus is more important than those thousands of lives that had some type of purpose already?
Something seems out of whack here…

 
Flag Post

Hmmmm….an interesting approach, Draco.

“Grander scheme of human progress” can probably viewed as: a subjective perception of the value of an Earth organism known as the human being.

I esp. liked how ya bring up the arrogance of how we treat the ecosystem we hugely depend upon to sustain a healthy life. Pathetically, we even treat our own bodies badly in the manner which we “feed” it. We pollute our water, our air, the very earth beneath our feet.

That ya see the “trinity” (I luv 3’s) of human existence is kool
Those that seek pleasures in life is highly understandably obvious as to why they opt for it.
Of course, this is subjective and can have hugely “unpleasant” effect on those around them.

Those that are humanitarians and seek to improve humanity are lauded for their efforts.
This is understandable.
But, when looked at deeper, some of the reasons behind the behavior aren’t so “nice”.

Then, the ppl who are mundane & nondescript are by far (in degrees of course) the bulk of us.
At this point, let me state the obvious: each of us will very likely have all 3 aspects of the “trinity” in our lives.
But, it is this group who largely provides us with the “hypocritical antithetical” drive for that sacredness of human life by zealously focusing on a “one-trick-pony” issue of the unborn baby in order to give their mundane lives some form of greater worth….regardless of how hollowly bloated it is because of the ambiguity of that issue.

This group latches onto this cause because it fulfills the need in their lives to “make a difference”. The hypocrisy comes in when they fail to make much of any observance to those other aspects of life that YOU mention. Hell, they don’t even give much of a damn about the fetus after it is born. Their hypocrisy is most glaring when they seek to deny an abortion that has all the earmarks to eventually end up being a leech on society which they abhor and hugely bitch about (ala jhco).

Then, on the “flip side”….I like how ya point out the insanity of how we so easily are willing to sacrifice those—who are older and have garnered much more “value”—via a host of pathetically senseless ways. Your mention of WAR being of the the greater ones. What do we fight for? To possess a better “slice” of our Earth’s dwindling resources?

This is the utter hypocrisy of the “pro-life” extremist groups.
They strive to provide a host of more lives on a planet that can’t feed those already on it.
Obviously this group of ppl, regardless of which part of the “trinity” they are, have little-2-NO perspective.

 
Flag Post
Not some radical religious viewpoint on life where they keep jamming this idea down our throat that every human life is sacred, be it pre-human or not.

It really isn’t a radical thought to be pro life.

Although, they don’t seem to give the same courtesy to other living organisms either. Look at how they disregard the purpose of plants, and animals that give us sustenance and life, yet if it’s human then we must, no matter what, no reason required, protect that life at all cost.

I hope you’re trying to troll.

So this pointless fetus is more important than those thousands of lives that had some type of purpose already?

Again, half the United States disagrees that the fetus is ‘pointless.’ And that isn’t counting all the people who are pro-choice in that they don’t want the government stopping abortions but are pro-life in their personal lives.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by Draconavin: Although, they don’t seem to give the same courtesy to other living organisms either. Look at how they disregard the purpose of plants, and animals that give us sustenance and life, yet if it’s human then we must, no matter what, no reason required, protect that life at all cost.

I hope you’re trying to troll.

If you look at the big picture, plants are way more important than animals. They are the only ones that can produce oxygen and produce energy animals can use.
Life on this planet would be possible with plants and decomposers alone. Consumers like animals are not necessary. At all.
Of course, this is somewhat off-topic…

And that isn’t counting all the people who are pro-choice in that they don’t want the government stopping abortions but are pro-life in their personal lives.

I don’t think that there are very many people who think that a human foetus is pointless. You don’t have to be personally pro-life in order to think that a developing life is significant. I think that it is. That’s the whole reason why this debate is interesting to me. I just don’t think that it is more significant than a woman’s right to determine the direction of her life until it can be undoubtedly considered a person.

 
Flag Post

If you look at the big picture, plants are way more important than animals. They are the only ones that can produce oxygen and produce energy animals can use.
Life on this planet would be possible with plants and decomposers alone. Consumers like animals are not necessary. At all.
Of course, this is somewhat off-topic…

I’m not arguing that, but to put a dandelion or a caterpillar at the same level of a human is absurd.

I don’t think that there are very many people who think that a human foetus is pointless.

Draconavin does which is all I’m concerned about at the moment.

 
Flag Post

I want to ask you this first. Can you handle a mature discussion? Can we be adult if I go down this line of reasoning?
If so, let’s proceed.

The Human fetus has no value except for having the potential to become a human, and even during the first few years of infancy the child is nothing more than a parasite that requires constant affection, time and effort to be raised well. You can stretch this idea even further into saying that a human is not of any worth, until they become a productive member of society; many conservatives take this stance, as do I, to a certain extent. The value of a human being, to me, is defined by what purpose they hold if they are looking to progress mankind or hinder it, is where i find great admiration, or fault. There are not many people who try to advance humanity; there a fewer still that actually succeed. For most of us, we live a purposeless life, some of us are always seeking purpose, always trying to add value to society. Others are stuck in survival mode, and leech the resources of the planet to benefit themselves either in small amounts or massive scales like the oil companies, mining companies, hydro companies, etc. The latter seeks to abuse their resource collecting ability for profit, monetary gain—an artificial human construct to quantify value.

By an economic standpoint, humans are wasteful creatures, and very rarely provide “profit”, always providing losses, and debt. We are in a massive human debt crisis on the global scale with rising populations, as they are now. We can’t sustain them all. We don’t have complex enough systems to handle the load of the obese—population size—human population. For conservatives, the economics is far more important than the actual wastes of humanity, but if humans in themeselves are not providing improved productivity or “profit”, why are we wasting so much time and effort sustaining them?

This all comes full circle to my original point of the fetus being “pointless”, or in this case: worthless. The fetus doesn’t add value to society. It has the potential to add value. In economics, having potential is frivolous, the results are what matter. Until it adds value, it is worthless to humanity, and a drain on our resources. Even marginal value is acceptable, but no value? Come on now.

 
Flag Post

A truly great addition to our discussion on this issue, Dracon.
It offers an insight that likely is seen by most to be a very “cold” one.
But, for those who relish rational thinking understand the why of it, they understand that such is needed to balance the “emotional” one so that a more true, comprehensive picture is given.

Many in this discussion have been admonishing the “it’s a BABY factor….mostly because it is seen as an EMOTIONAL appeal. Well, your “cold” appeal certainly hugely overshadows that factor via a much greater analysis of the enormity of our global eco-social system.

I wonder how many are able to grasp YOUR concept if they apply it to something more tangible.
The famines in African nations. Those living conditions of the massively overpopulated China. There was something told to me a long time back about the massive reproduction of pp in China: Chinese people could be lined up, five abreast, and marched into the sea and this would never cease….such was the output of ppl.

I don’t know how factual it was, but it can at least demonstrate a concept that YOU bring up.
That being the “economics” of consumption & how it is effecting our globe. Does China or Africa “need” all these ppl? Could their plight be a harbinger what what might lie “down the road” for the balance of the world….if we don’t come to a much better understanding that not all resources are renewable?

Truly, just how much of a “parasite” is humanity to Mother Earth?
A cold, rational, non-emotional look at this aspect ain’t a bad idea…eh?
Yeah, we humans think we are the “top-of-the-food-chain” champions.
NOT SO.
Bacteria & viruses will far outlast us.
In fact, they will be our undoing…..after we “open the door” for them when we can no longer sustain the level of healthcare we have because we totally screw up our current (though it be shaky) level of social order.

Think it can’t happen?
How many other advanced civilizations have risen…only to fall?
Incas, Aztecs, Rome.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

I want to ask you this first. Can you handle a mature discussion? Can we be adult if I go down this line of reasoning?
If so, let’s proceed.

The Human fetus has no value except for having the potential to become a human, and even during the first few years of infancy the child is nothing more than a parasite that requires constant affection, time and effort to be raised well. You can stretch this idea even further into saying that a human is not of any worth, until they become a productive member of society; many conservatives take this stance, as do I, to a certain extent. The value of a human being, to me, is defined by what purpose they hold if they are looking to progress mankind or hinder it, is where i find great admiration, or fault. There are not many people who try to advance humanity; there a fewer still that actually succeed. For most of us, we live a purposeless life, some of us are always seeking purpose, always trying to add value to society. Others are stuck in survival mode, and leech the resources of the planet to benefit themselves either in small amounts or massive scales like the oil companies, mining companies, hydro companies, etc. The latter seeks to abuse their resource collecting ability for profit, monetary gain—an artificial human construct to quantify value.

By an economic standpoint, humans are wasteful creatures, and very rarely provide “profit”, always providing losses, and debt. We are in a massive human debt crisis on the global scale with rising populations, as they are now. We can’t sustain them all. We don’t have complex enough systems to handle the load of the obese—population size—human population. For conservatives, the economics is far more important than the actual wastes of humanity, but if humans in themeselves are not providing improved productivity or “profit”, why are we wasting so much time and effort sustaining them?

This all comes full circle to my original point of the fetus being “pointless”, or in this case: worthless. The fetus doesn’t add value to society. It has the potential to add value. In economics, having potential is frivolous, the results are what matter. Until it adds value, it is worthless to humanity, and a drain on our resources. Even marginal value is acceptable, but no value? Come on now.

I feel really bad for you that you possess such an empty and shallow view of humanity and your fellow man.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

I feel really bad for you that you possess such an empty and shallow view of humanity and your fellow man.

Has he stated that it is his ONLY view?
Ya do know that SOME ppl are capable of an open mind that is able to view things in a very broad (as opposed to narrow-mindedness) scope….a scope that is able to see extremes in both “sides” of an issue? That just might be what he meant when he said: “I want to ask you this first. Can you handle a mature discussion? Can we be adult if I go down this line of reasoning?
If so, let’s proceed.”

YOUR response clearly answered.

As I said, albeit the view he presents is a very cold, analytical one of a situation that is acutely obvious in certain African nations, it is a REALITY that NEEDS to be considered in the equation on abortion.

That said, there is absolutely NOTHING that says such reality has to apply ONLY to abortion.
I would see it much better applied to EDUCATION & PREVENTION.

Such is the gravity of the problem.
The best solution to a problem is to address it….in ALL of its ramifications.

 
Flag Post
Has he stated that it is he ONLY view?
Ya do know that SOME ppl are capable of an open mind that is able to view things in a very broad (as opposed to narrow-mindedness) scope….a scope that is able to see extremes in both “sides” of an issue?

As I said, albeit that view is a very cold, analytical one of a situation that is acutely obvious in certain African nations, it is a REALITY that NEEDS to be considered in the equation on abortion.

That said, there is absolutely NOTHING that says such reality has to apply ONLY to abortion.
I would see it much better applied to EDUCATION & PREVENTION.

Such is the gravity of the problem.
The best solution to a problem is to address it….in ALL of its ramifications.

“Well, I guess I should “thank you” for yer input.
After all, it is an open forum.
However, I addressed MY question to HIM.
Ergo, I SPECIFICALLY wanted to hear from him.
And, I had no idea that YOU were now speaking for him,,
and able to assess his emotions on issues.”

: )

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Has he stated that it is he ONLY view?
Ya do know that SOME ppl are capable of an open mind that is able to view things in a very broad (as opposed to narrow-mindedness) scope….a scope that is able to see extremes in both “sides” of an issue?

As I said, albeit that view is a very cold, analytical one of a situation that is acutely obvious in certain African nations, it is a REALITY that NEEDS to be considered in the equation on abortion.

That said, there is absolutely NOTHING that says such reality has to apply ONLY to abortion.
I would see it much better applied to EDUCATION & PREVENTION.

Such is the gravity of the problem.
The best solution to a problem is to address it….in ALL of its ramifications.

“Well, I guess I should “thank you” for yer input.
After all, it is an open forum.
However, I addressed MY question to HIM.
Ergo, I SPECIFICALLY wanted to hear from him.
And, I had no idea that YOU were now speaking for him,,
and able to assess his emotions on issues.”

: )

YUP….it does appear that maturity IS an issue here.
Why not just address the topic at hand rather than behave like a childish ass?
OR, is your doing so the only thing ya have “up your sleeve”?
Quite fuckin’ around and make worthy comment on Dracon’s post.
His point is as valid as it is harsh.
It takes a MATURE mind to deal w/ the reality of it.
Try seeing it through the eyes of “Spock”.
 
Flag Post

I’m going to leave issendorf with these few little quips:

  “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same
  time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see things as
  hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
  — F. Scott Fitzgerald

  “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.”
  — Emile Chartier

  “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
  — Eleanor Roosevelt

Derive whatever meaning you want from it as you see fit.