Abortion page 118

3077 posts

Flag Post

Yes, I saw that the first time and agree with that statement. Everyone, not just women, is different.

 
Flag Post

And as we have discussed before there is always adoption

Are you living in an illusion world where adoption rates are incredibly high and kids being given up for adoption incrediby low? If not, why suggest to torture the kid without a real mother and not even real motherly attention given to them for some time?

I’d never force a woman to carry a dead baby in her womb.

Great! We both agree that abortion should be legal! (At the very least in those cases.)

 
Flag Post

As we have discussed before there is always a period of nine months that the woman has to cover and that will in many cases endanger her career…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
OR EVEN a “brain-dead” one. YET, I am well aware that such happens very frequently….all the more a reason for abortion to remain legal.

PLUS, I won’t even revist the many “live-brain”-inspired reasons (most of them already presented on this vaunted forum),,,,,,other than to say: Stay out of a woman’s body….regardless of how strongly it is reputed to be very “pleasurable”.

ABORTION IS LEGAL….deal w/ it.
The morality of it can be debated until the cows come home.
Personally, I give a shit if someone wants to be against it…for whatever reason.
This is because abortion is just that: PERSONAL.

This is an unfortunate circumstance and a natural process that sometimes happens. It lowers the standard of the left to use this as a political point to push for abortion. It is not considered an abortion but a medical procedure at this point.

jake-o, what have I told ya about those ANTECEDENTS?
Regardless of whatever the hell YOU are talking about, THIS is something ya probably ought to know: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.
There is absolutely no reason to kill fetus that has developed a brain.

Boy-0-boy….YOU certainly are staunchly “hard-headed”. MANY REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN. Some of them EVEN YOU agreed with. At the bottom of this post, I’ll cite a “BIGGIE”….one that ya just can’t seem to wrap that ego of yours around.

That is why abortion has so many enemies and why people are not convince of the utility of abortion.

Abortion may have “many” enemies….but what in life doesn’t: Yin-Yang. BUT, howzzabout YOU showing me several UNBIASED polls that concur w/ YOUR belief on this “utility” thing?
Actually, you should give a shit as the possibility of a reversal of Roe vs Wade is possible if the Supreme Court continues to be conservative. It has been mentioned on the news recently. If you are driving away potential supporters, you will lose your precious abortion legality.

Wow…more scare tactics from the rabid-right,,,I sure am surprised. LOL In the same breath, let’s just say in 2020 that Sarah Palin will win the Presidency AND the Mrs. Universe Pageant.

EPR89 clearly points out that your “hopes” about the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade are a loooooooong way down the road. Ya really ought to have a “reality check” here….that children-notion of ""if you want something badlly enough…it will happen"" doesn’t apply to this election cycle. NOR does it to most of your ideological stances ya have presented on this forum.

Women’s rights have progressed much too far to ever “stuff the genie back in the bottle” on the abortion issue. I know YOU just can’t “get it” about that. However, thank Gawd, your “getting it” isn’t important nor necessary for women’s rights to be respected.

Now, to present what I promised above:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

“If” people forget to use birth control"? Are you serious? Something as important as "Birth Control? and they just nonchalantly forget? If this is how they are, they shouldn’t even have sex. We don’t want them to add their stupidity to our gene pool. It’s polluted enough.


Therein lies the problem, and a logical qualm, jhco. People often have sex because they are stupid and irresponsible. You do understand that, don’t you?


The ones who take the right pills, find the right marriage and job, and wait for the right time are not a problem and nothing we are concerned with.

NO, Twilight_Ninja….HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THAT. His obsessive “hatred” for abortion—someting most agree is a difficult issue—and maybe his “ego-driven need” to be right (all the time?) appears to cause him to have this super-ability to IGNORE that which doesn’t massage his ideology.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Nah, don’t think so. The people are 50/50. And since the basics for making abortions outright illegal are not yet clearly determined (most importantly personhood) it will still be a while until that is even close to happening. Until then we will have the regulations we have right now and on top of that it stays the woman’s decision. No one can force her to have an abortion and no one can force her not to have one as long as that is what she thinks is best for her.

I don’t even know how you would go at defining those basics with what we know right now.

My tuppence on this is, we can’t. You are pressing right up against the current hard limit of medical science on several of those points. On others, we simply lack the kind of widespread diagnostic capabilities that would give each individual the information she needs to make a decision – such as up to the minute advice on her actually being pregnant, for one.

Both limits are very subject to change, but they won’t change sufficiently to base an actual decision on, this decade at the very least.

 
Flag Post

Abortion should never be abused to the point it is used as a form of concreption. That hopefully should never be the deciding factor. I can see jhco (unestablished fear) argument that abortion can be used for that purpose…well we should save guard against that misuse and allow women that actually have real needs for abortions to have them legally.
I don’t see how we can’t come to agreement on this issue…unless you are so fundamentally religious that you resemble that attitubetes similar to Sharia law.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
Great! We both agree that abortion should be legal! (At the very least in those cases.)

Heh. I don’t think you know what abortion is. Abortion is the ending of the life inside the mother. If the baby is dead, there is no ending of that life, so there is no abortion. Forcing a woman to carry an already dead baby isn’t anti-abortion, it’s idiotic.

Originally posted by tenco1:Yeah, way to take all of that context out of that post to make you sound better.
It isn’t taken out of context. The post clearly said, in a single line, that I believe in forcing a woman to carry a dead baby. That’s not the case.
Originally posted by tenco1:
Also, you kinda did, what with the part about wanting all abortions to be illegal (this is where the forcing part comes into place), and that would include when it’s either dead, or better off dead (i.e genetic defect, or not really going to be able to live without lots of life-support for the rest of its life.)


There’s a big big difference between removing an already dead fetus, and an abortion. This is the dumbest strawman I’ve ever seen in my life.

On a side note, a baby that is alive, that has a genetic defect, isn’t “better off dead”. That’s a pretty nasty thing to think.

 
Flag Post

Heh. I don’t think you know what abortion is. Abortion is the ending of the life inside the mother. If the baby is dead, there is no ending of that life, so there is no abortion. Forcing a woman to carry an already dead baby isn’t anti-abortion, it’s idiotic.

Ah, okay, so we’re not one bit of a step further and you’re still clinging to the belief we should let women die no matter if the doctors tell them it’s either them or the baby.

And if that’s not the belief you hold, then, for once, give me an answer:

1. Abortion illegal in every single case. Women that would almost certainly die when giving birth are forced to.
2. Abortion legal at least in the case of serious health risks to the woman.

There is no middle route. You can choose to not have an abortion when it’s legal, so your personal choice doesn’t matter.

(I’m going to ignore the discussion about a dead fetus from now on, since we agree the woman should be allowed to remove it.)

 
Flag Post

Well I’m glad we cleared up the silly dead fetus thing, wherever that came from.

But, dark, I’m not going to answer your question, for 2 reasons.

1) I already did, thoroughly. In fact, I used a very personal story about my wife and I to illustrate how very strong my beliefs are.
2) You need to stop being so pushy about demanding I respond to your points.

Now, if you’d like me to remind you what I said, I’d be more willing to do that. When you frame your question with “answer this for once” it makes it sound like I haven’t answered it, which makes it a loaded question.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

On a side note, a baby that is alive, that has a genetic defect, isn’t “better off dead”. That’s a pretty nasty thing to think.

So you admit to not only letting a child with a genetic defect (possibly heart, lungs, a limb or two, hell, maybe even all of them or just being a vegetable) be born, where it might possibly die, or have to have severe medical attention until the parents can’t keep it up (Which is somehow better than being dead) but also that the parents would have no choice in the matter, and they would have to do that.

Originally posted by MyTie:

Yeah, I think you misread what he said, he said:

And if that’s not the belief you hold, then, for once, give me an answer:

Which means, if you weren’t paying attention, that if you actually do believe that all abortion should be illegal, that you don’t have to answer the questions.

 
Flag Post

You sound like a very sensitive person, MyTie, and that’s not really helpful in discussing sensitive subjects. It’s not a “please sir, no offense intended, I hope you have a nice day” thread, but on the other hand I try not to include any insults. If you really have a problem with me saying “for once” and then refuse to answer any questions while still admitting you would if I phrased it slightly differently, then it slows down discussion far too much.

The only “important” thing about your case study (which should in no way be evidence for a legal matter) I remember is that your wife miraculously survived and therefore abortion shouldn’t be allowed. If that is not the reason, do explain it to me again.

But let me add one thing. Is it right to push a very sensitive personal story of your own in order to push legal matters one way for other people with other case studies?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:So you admit to…

I don’t admit to it. I proudly stand for it.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

You sound like a very sensitive person, MyTie, and that’s not really helpful in discussing sensitive subjects. It’s not a “please sir, no offense intended, I hope you have a nice day” thread, but on the other hand I try not to include any insults. If you really have a problem with me saying “for once” and then refuse to answer any questions while still admitting you would if I phrased it slightly differently, then it slows down discussion far too much.


The only “important” thing about your case study (which should in no way be evidence for a legal matter) I remember is that your wife miraculously survived and therefore abortion shouldn’t be allowed. If that is not the reason, do explain it to me again.


But let me add one thing. Is it right to push a very sensitive personal story of your own in order to push legal matters one way for other people with other case studies?

I don’t protest your question out of sensitivity. It’s important in this discussion, which is dear to me, to be clear in each post, and each communication. You noticed that in so many words I answered your question, which was my intention, while at the same time dismissing the tone of your question. Perhaps I was being effective in my communication and disarming what looked to me to be a loaded question?

Finally, the example of my son that miscarried is not my reasoning to oppose abortion. It is not my “therefore”. It is wrong to take innocent human life. Place that sentence in front of any “therefore”. The significance of the story was to illustrate how completely and totally I believe in that sentence. My conviction that unborn babies are innocent human life, and no one has the right to end those lives, is total and unabashed, and will not be broken with any example or hypothetical, no matter how significant, nor compelling.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps I was being effective in my communication and disarming what looked to me to be a loaded question?

It wasn’t so much. Tenco somewhat explained it. But, you know, you can both answer the real question and tell me it looks like a loaded question. It saves time.

My conviction that unborn babies are innocent human life, and no one has the right to end those lives, is total and unabashed, and will not be broken with any example or hypothetical, no matter how significant, nor compelling.

If you truly hold this viewpoint, then you argue that a fetus’ life is worth more than a woman’s life, in the case of significant danger to the life of the woman if the birth is to go through. If you don’t hold that viewpoint, then either:

1. Your views are inconsistent.
2. You find it acceptable to abort in case the woman’s life is in danger if the birth is to go through.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Abortion should never be abused to the point it is used as a form of conception. That hopefully should never be the deciding factor. I can see jhco (unestablished fear) argument that abortion can be used for that purpose…well we should save guard against that misuse and allow women that actually have real needs for abortions to have them legally.
I don’t see how we can’t come to agreement on this issue…unless you are so fundamentally religious that you resemble that attributes similar to Sharia law.

Not to be “twisting” yer point, FlabbyWW (perhaps what I say is more what YOU meant?)….abortion SHOULD NEVER be abused….PERIOD. Sure,,,certainly NOT to the point of it being blithely, callously used for “birth-control”. However, I really, REALLY shouldn’t have to point out that: Do you really want THAT KIND OF PERSON to be polluting the “chromosome-swim”? I’m for handing out COUPONS for abortion to THAT KIND of ppl. Shit, call it a weird form of “ethnic cleansing” being used in an effort to protect society—the sane, sensible, RESPONSIBLE part—from those who are mostly (all?) a “cancer” in it.

The really odd part of it is how jake-o sooooo hates this “element” of society—including all of those who demonstrate associated behavior of that “moral” level"—but yet misses a decent “opportunity” to “dispose of” the “problem” in a PREVENTATIVE METHOD.

When I say PREVENTATIVE……LOOK DEEP,,,,very deep. Unloved ppl pretty much are the ones who do all the criminal activity. Does anyone really care to dispute THAT?….at least beyond the “exceptions-to-the-rule” game?

FlabbyWW’s point—that we must safeguard against abuse of abortion in order to & whilst ensuring that those OF TRUE (rational?) NEED are able to avail them selves the procedure—pretty much shoots down all the claptrap jake-o spews out about how “abuse-is-reason-for-cessation”.

Automobiles (AND TRUCKS & modern highways) are a marvel that has—in a short 100 years—propelled mankind in a huge leap…..likely much faster than it should have,,,,the “technology-faster-responsible-use” factor. Ppl do stooopid things. Ppl do stoooopid things WITH CARS. My 16 y.o. cousin and 7 others teens (4 boys & 4 girls out having FUN in cars) died in a head-on crash that was ruled the result of playing “chicken” out there on that very open highway….likely (from the damage) doing in excess of 70mph.

Should we make autos illegal? Should we stop teens from driving (until 21 or older)? NO. Jake-o needs to grow up and acquire a mature rational about how 99.9999999999999999% of EVERYTHING can/has been/IS/will be “abused”….if for no other reason than at least ONE person will see it as such.

Varying degrees of abuse DO NOT trump the need for nor the rational use of such things…even the “sensitive” ones such as abortion.

FlabbyWW….I “second” YOUR plea: “I don’t how {why} we can’t come to agreement on this issue…..” We certainly need to do so….at least to the simple point of “agreeing to disagree,,without being disagreeable”. As it is, this issue is soooooo fucking divisive that we are unable to function as a society should.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Perhaps I was being effective in my communication and disarming what looked to me to be a loaded question?

It wasn’t so much. Tenco somewhat explained it. But, you know, you can both answer the real question and tell me it looks like a loaded question. It saves time.

My conviction that unborn babies are innocent human life, and no one has the right to end those lives, is total and unabashed, and will not be broken with any example or hypothetical, no matter how significant, nor compelling.

If you truly hold this viewpoint, then you argue that a fetus’ life is worth more than a woman’s life, in the case of significant danger to the life of the woman if the birth is to go through. If you don’t hold that viewpoint, then either:

1. Your views are inconsistent.
2. You find it acceptable to abort in case the woman’s life is in danger if the birth is to go through.

One may be more important than the other. We simply shouldn’t be the judge of when that is acceptable. I refer you to to trolley dilemma, and point out that my answer would be to allow several people to die instead of actively killing one person.

Can we at least agree that we should be able to be the judge of when abortion is NOT acceptable, in some cases. Can we agree that abortion should not be allowed when the woman is not in any danger, and simply doing it for selfish reasons, such as money, or her figure? I mean, that does cover 99% of abortions. Can we at least agree on those?

 
Flag Post

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

Ok, then we disagree. Simple as that.

Anyone else?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

Ok, then we disagree. Simple as that.

Anyone else?

Good. If abortion was legal people could decide based on what they think. Since we don’t really have anything to base arguments that would allow us to make legal decisions on that would be the best solution right now.

Maybe a bit more on my views: to me the motivation behind an abortion is not very relevant. It should be the decision of the woman, but that’s basically it. The other factor, which is much more important and which cannot be determined safely yet is the developmental status of the fetus (and related, personhood). I think that where most abortions are performed right now (around week 13 if I remember correctly) there is nothing that really would justify making it illegal. Unless you think about personhood differently than I do or use completely different criteria.

 
Flag Post

I refer you to to trolley dilemma, and point out that my answer would be to allow several people to die instead of actively killing one person.

We had a discussion about that, in which I think you missed my last post. First of all, the trolley dilemma includes non-responsibility choices. Everybody will applaud you for choosing to allow the trolley to kill only one person instead of multiple. You’re making a fuzz about it only because that one person wasn’t already part of the group that was going to get killed. This implies the multiple people being “accidentally unlucky” deserve to have it coming for them purely because you think you’re making an active choice by reducing the amount of victims the trolley makes.

We heavily disagree on this part, but it isn’t that relevant either, since it’s quite different for an abortion.

I refer you to to trolley dilemma, and point out that my answer would be to allow several people to die instead of actively killing one person.

I, personally, believe that we shouldn’t kill fetuses when there are no significant health risks to the woman or fetus, when the woman is financially and emotionally capable of taking care of a baby, and when there’s no case of rape. “Money” is not a selfish reason. If the woman can’t financially support a baby, she shouldn’t have one. I wish adoption centers were perfect in the sense that the moment you put up a baby for adoption, it gets picked up. But it doesn’t work like that. You’ll have to include that as well. Including having to carry the fetus to full term, and giving birth. The problem I have here is that at the moment of conception, infinite value is given to the fetus. Infinite. One moment after conception. Which wasn’t there one moment before conception. That’s just as arbitrary as giving this value after birth. I argue there’s no black and white, only black, white, and a huge area of grey. When the reasons are valid enough (you might agree on significant health risks), this value of life is not higher than removing these health risks. This means the value of life is not infinite (but it is when you suggest it is if abortion should not be done in any case). This value can be overridden by other factors. Entirely based on opinion, of course, when this value is higher, but this gets us somewhere in the discussion.

 
Flag Post
One may be more important than the other. We simply shouldn’t be the judge of when that is acceptable.

The individual can be the judge of when it is acceptable or not acceptable…if it’s their decision to make…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
One may be more important than the other. We simply shouldn’t be the judge of when that is acceptable.

The individual can be the judge of when it is acceptable or not acceptable…if it’s their decision to make…

Unfortunately, fetuses are not capable of making decisions. If you are referring to a woman’s legal right to choose, I’d tell you that appeals to law are a logical fallacy. We are arguing about the morality of such laws.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Unfortunately, fetuses are not capable of making decisions.

Fetuses are not capable of making decions as they have absolutely no higher brain functions whatsoever. As a direct result, they are not capable of making a decision and it must be made for them by their next of kin, or the closest blood relative. In all cases, this would be the mother.

 
Flag Post

I personally am all for abortion. Anything to slow the uncontrolled expansion of the human race is a good thing, and buys us more time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

I disagree EPR. If she was that worried about her career she would have been much more careful. Her career was never on her mind and this is not a valid reason to kill a fetus. It would be like me killing the neighbor because he was hired to fill my job after I worked so hard to learn it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

I disagree EPR. If she was that worried about her career she would have been much more careful. Her career was never on her mind and this is not a valid reason to kill a fetus. It would be like me killing the neighbor because he hired to fill my job after I worked so hard to learn it.

Except it wouldn’t be.

Anyway, the problem with the adoption route is that nine months of pregnancy and child birth aren’t so insignificant that is appropriate to make a person go through both in order to go on with their life the way they want to.