|
On April 28 2011 22:53 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:43 Talin wrote:On April 28 2011 22:27 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 22:19 Talin wrote:On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead? Well that is just great. Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy. You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any). So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies? Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others. Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation. You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. But still you understand it. I mean, *I* understand it, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time? I'm not against murder, one can't be so set in stone on that for obvious reasons. However, I do my best to balance fairly the decisions based on pros and cons. In this situation, the women has no control over the issue, and carrying this baby can be a traumatic experience, and not through any fault of her own. For these reasons, I think the woman has a choice in the issue, though it should still be a well informed one, as it's still a matter of life or death. I would also be okay with abortion in the case that the mother will die, because choosing who lives or dies becomes a more balanced (though difficult) choice. I didn't word that last sentence right, and I'm feel it will get picked on, but I hope people can understand the meaning and not the literal interpretation. In the more usual case, anyone having sex consensually needs to understand that even using contraception, there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Understanding this, I do not think the negative effects of pregnancy and support of a child warrant an abortion. Education on sex and pregnancy should be better though. Solving the problem upstream is always the better solution.
And this is why, the debate shouldn't be pro-choice/pro-life (pro-death/anti-choice :D ). But rather, it should "legal abortion vs illegal abortion". The truth is, is that immoral or not, legal or not, abortions will occur. With effective contraception, less often, but they will still occur, since the drive to have sex is THE biological imperative of humanity. The only choice the legislature has, is to choose between unsafe abortions occuring and safe ones.
*going off memory, but the abortion rate is not significantly different between countries where abortions are legal/not legal, controlling for national income. The difference is that when abortion is illegal, a very high proportion are unsafe (60+%)
The entire debate on the morality of abortions is a strawman, as I'm pretty sure that everyone would concede that the less abortions, the better.
|
On April 28 2011 23:03 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:52 feanor1 wrote:On April 28 2011 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 22:37 PolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2011 22:29 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 22:19 PolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person. With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish. Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth! And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion. That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy. The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?! Well with modern medicine there are things such as pre birth surgery. http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/february2011/02142011spinabifida.htmHell you said you were a doctor, I learned this shit from TV. Scrubs!!!!! Aren't you brilliant? Do I really have to walk you through the disorders and which we can do something about and which we can do nothing about? Ultrasound is usually done to determine wheter or not the baby is in risk of having trisomy 21 whilst also checking for other handicaps. Do you think we can surgically remove an extra chromosome 21? How about you go back to scrubs?
Well obviously Down Syndrome is a major reason, but you asked what people can possible find useful if they are against abortion, pre birth surgery for some things is something they would definitely find useful. And guess what you can find with an Ultrasound, Spina bifida. Or is down syndrome the only thing ever found using an ultrasound
|
A fetus before 20 weeks has no ability to reason, rationalize, or feel emotion. This is biological fact. Google it. These are the traits that seperate us from every other species on the planet. Why should we grant rights to an underdeveloped entity that has no more of a mind than a bug?
A potential person is not a person. I mass genocide sperm every day. Does that make me a murderer?
If you think the fetus has a soul then that is your prerogative, but don't try to force it on everyone else.
As for after 20 weeks... a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is a point where a fetus becomes a human. It's different every time. Easier to draw that line somewhere ahead of that usual point as to not murder anyone.
|
If the religious right-wing wants to protect unborn babies why do they cut social services for the born?
I don't see how you can presume to know every situation a newly pregnant person can be in just because it's after X weeks.
I can't buy alcohol on Sunday either. Why??
|
On April 28 2011 23:06 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:53 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 22:43 Talin wrote:On April 28 2011 22:27 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 22:19 Talin wrote:On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead? Well that is just great. Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy. You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any). So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies? Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others. Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation. You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. But still you understand it. I mean, *I* understand it, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time? I'm not against murder, one can't be so set in stone on that for obvious reasons. However, I do my best to balance fairly the decisions based on pros and cons. In this situation, the women has no control over the issue, and carrying this baby can be a traumatic experience, and not through any fault of her own. For these reasons, I think the woman has a choice in the issue, though it should still be a well informed one, as it's still a matter of life or death. I would also be okay with abortion in the case that the mother will die, because choosing who lives or dies becomes a more balanced (though difficult) choice. I didn't word that last sentence right, and I'm feel it will get picked on, but I hope people can understand the meaning and not the literal interpretation. In the more usual case, anyone having sex consensually needs to understand that even using contraception, there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Understanding this, I do not think the negative effects of pregnancy and support of a child warrant an abortion. Education on sex and pregnancy should be better though. Solving the problem upstream is always the better solution. And this is why, the debate shouldn't be pro-choice/pro-life (pro-death/anti-choice :D ). But rather, it should "legal abortion vs illegal abortion". The truth is, is that immoral or not, legal or not, abortions will occur. With effective contraception, less often, but they will still occur, since the drive to have sex is THE biological imperative of humanity. The only choice the legislature has, is to choose between unsafe abortions occuring and safe ones. *going off memory, but the abortion rate is not significantly different between countries where abortions are legal/not legal, controlling for national income. The difference is that when abortion is illegal, a very high proportion are unsafe (60+%) The entire debate on the morality of abortions is a strawman, as I'm pretty sure that everyone would concede that the less abortions, the better.
I'll drink to that!
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 28 2011 14:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 13:32 Whitewing wrote:On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote:
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is. There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not. The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case. You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical. The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
The day before it develops the ability to feel is fine, it's not sentient, and we have this interesting double standard at that point where it's okay to kill animals for various reasons but it's not okay to stop something from eventually becoming alive (I should note that the fetus at this stage cannot really be considered alive, it has no hope of surviving on its own). The rest of this is filled with logical fallacies, you just ignore any and all potential reasons for choosing a set point and then jump to the conclusion that it must result in conception being the only viable point.
And a few more hours makes a difference because at some point during those hours, something significant could develop. And whether there should or should not be estimation is a question of economics, it's infeasible to have someone make a judgment on every individual case legally speaking, so they set a reasonable point.
|
On April 28 2011 16:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:17 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On April 28 2011 16:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote:
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo. Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth. Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : ) No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed! P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends.
I'm not offended, it's a personal opinion. I still believe it's a woman's right to decide not a males, regardless. There are always "Special" situations. Not to mention America hasn't been a democracy for who knows how long.
|
On April 28 2011 23:12 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:03 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 22:52 feanor1 wrote:On April 28 2011 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 22:37 PolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2011 22:29 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 22:19 PolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_>
In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness?
And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person. With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish. Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth! And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion. That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy. The only reason it makes me sick is because you want your opinions to be the universal standard, you are obviously entitled to having your own! My opinions are founded on ethical arguments which you could obviously argue against, but at least they are coherrent. Anyone who uses the argument that it is a baby and thus it shouldn't be aborted let me ask you: Did your wife get an ultrasound or any bloodwork done when she was pregnant with your kid? Assuming the answer is yes, WHY?! Well with modern medicine there are things such as pre birth surgery. http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/february2011/02142011spinabifida.htmHell you said you were a doctor, I learned this shit from TV. Scrubs!!!!! Aren't you brilliant? Do I really have to walk you through the disorders and which we can do something about and which we can do nothing about? Ultrasound is usually done to determine wheter or not the baby is in risk of having trisomy 21 whilst also checking for other handicaps. Do you think we can surgically remove an extra chromosome 21? How about you go back to scrubs? Well obviously Down Syndrome is a major reason, but you asked what people can possible find useful if they are against abortion, pre birth surgery for some things is something they would definitely find useful. And guess what you can find with an Ultrasound, Spina bifida. Or is down syndrome the only thing ever found using an ultrasound
It obviously isn't, but the neck-fold scan is specificly aimed at identifying those in risk of having trisomy 21 - I thought it was pretty damn obvious that was what I was referring to, but I can see that I probably should've made that more clear...
|
I sidewalk counsel at our abortion clinic bi-weekly. The dirty secret is that women never forget what they've done and it leaves lasting, painful emotional scars. The common thread is deep regret.
If there is no God, then we Christians are to be pitied more than anyone and by all means enjoy life and put to death anyone you don't consider a "person". But if God is real, and if he tells the truth when he says he knew us from conception, then may He have mercy on us for not doing everything we can to prevent the murder of his innocent children.
|
On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights  .
Who are you to know it wasn't sentient? How dare you claim something like that?!
I am sorry if you feel abortion is about woman rights. It is not. It is about rights of the child. If you want to look beyond that it is as much about mans rights as womans. They are both equally responsible for the baby.
|
On April 28 2011 21:50 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:39 MagmaRam wrote:On April 28 2011 21:29 SpiffD wrote:On April 28 2011 21:20 eLiE wrote:On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights . God, you're so condescending. Have some decency describing the man's pride and joy. Who gives a fuck about a definition, I can guarantee the word, "life", has a million difference meanings for every single person in the world. It's this sweeping trend of rationality that seems to be trying to destroy any sense of morality. The current world view is just making a bunch of ass holes who see only in black and white, disregarding the emotional impact of their actions. Know what? Make every single woman see the baby they are killing. They want to be rational? Doctors are supposed to outline the costs and benefits of every single procedure they offer the patient. Know how you can show them the emotional impact of an abortion? Show them what they are removing from the body. If the baby is nothing, then the woman should have no problem going through with the abortion. Low blow? There is no low blow because you don't consider it a life anyway. And if you want to get really technical on the rationality of abortion, go all black and white, you can argue that one of the only purposes, if not the sole purpose of being alive on this pointless, rational world, is to reproduce and keep the human race moving into the future. So in killing a potential life, you are acting against the meaning of life. Well she's not killing a baby, she's killing some cells which does not add up to a person. Stop with the rhetoric. At what point do those cells add up to a person? Birth? Then is a baby 1 day from birth not a person, despite not being significantly different from the baby born the next day. A baby isn't fully developed, they have about two decades to go until then. At the end of growth? Then you should have no problem killing anyone under the age of 18. In fact, what makes anyone specifically a person? If the cells don't add up to a person until birth, then are babies born with defects not a person, because the cells don't add up the same way everyone else's do? Hell, what makes me a person? I just considered some pretty sick stuff, I think most would agree that it's not normal to do that. a baby is a baby when you could remove it from the womb, and with current medical technology it has a reasonable chance to survive. at that point, like everyone else it can be considered a person. before that a baby is no different from a cancer or a parasite.
With this kind of thinking I am wondering if you have anyone that loves you in your life. This train of though is so disturbing I would avoid you in a large circle (and so would almost anyone I know and I come from a liberal/leftwing background). You seriously need to have a kid to brighten your life (or got out more often as sun does wonders for depression) and you would stop this kind of crazy rambling.
|
On April 28 2011 11:01 lagmaster wrote:source+ Show Spoiler + INDIANAPOLIS, April 27 (UPI) -- A bill denying state funding to Planned Parenthood and setting a 20-week deadline for abortions received final legislative approval Wednesday in Indiana. Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican who opposes abortion, has not said whether he will sign the bill, the Indianapolis Star reported. The anti-abortion bill passed both houses of the legislature easily last week. The House had to take a second vote because the Senate added the provision cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood. "I believe that with passage of this legislation, we will become one of the most pro-life state in America, and I'll be proud of that," said Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican who wrote the bill. The bill bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Doctors will have to tell women abortion can lead to infertility and that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Planned Parenthood -- which receives about $3 million in state funding for services like providing birth control and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer -- said it will challenge the bill in court. Among the bill's critics, Democratic state Sen. Vi Elliott said cutting funding for birth control could mean more abortions. The state might also lose millions of dollars in federal aid. Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/27/Anti-abortion-law-passed-in-Indiana/UPI-62171303949327/#ixzz1KmIvLorZtl dr - The bill says that abortion after 20 weeks will be illegal in Indiana. In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier. It hasn't been signed yet so it all rests on the governor. I've been somewhat following the news on Planned Parenthood and it's federal funding. I came across this news today. 20 weeks is pretty late into pregnancy, but each step closer to a total ban scares me. I'm hoping other states don't follow in Indiana's wake. Obligatory warning: Chances are you will be banned for arguing for/against the abortion. This thread is talking specifically about the law and the potential for other states to adopt the same law (or a similar one). Discussion about planned parenthood is also ok and encouraged.
Wow 20 weeks???????? Its 12 weeks in canada. I don't by any means agree with banning abortion ( in cases of a girl being raped etc) But I definatly don't think it should be used as a form of birth control
|
On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it.
Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
|
On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote:
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision
On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote:
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife?
On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait.
On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from.
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote:
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly.
On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote:
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong.
On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind. Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'.
I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point.
Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking.
Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
|
On April 28 2011 22:08 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:04 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 21:45 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote:
Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do. My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming. The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later. As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain. Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass? Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything. Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy.
My wife was pregnant until few weeks ago and yes, it is not as hard as young boys with no experience like you think. Actually the only bad part of it was science interfering and stupid lazy doctor at the time deciding to do a cezarian when it was not needed (according to doctors that looked at the case later).
Just stop taking about stuff you got 0 experience in. You just look stupid.
|
On April 28 2011 23:22 GertHeart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 16:17 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On April 28 2011 16:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote:
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo. Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth. Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : ) No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed! P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends. I'm not offended, it's a personal opinion. I still believe it's a woman's right to decide not a males, regardless. There are always "Special" situations. Not to mention America hasn't been a democracy for who knows how long.
Hahaha, you might be right there, buddy. Nevertheless, I'm glad you've extended to me to old democratic courtesy of amicable disagreement even when I didn't extend it to you.
|
im Pro choice,
This is reasonable. You should know whether you want to keep the baby or not by this time.
|
On April 28 2011 23:51 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society.
You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
|
On April 28 2011 23:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote:
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote:
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife? Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time" Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote:
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote:
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind. Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'. I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point. Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking. Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on.
You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
|
Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
