|
On October 27 2008 05:28 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:07 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 04:51 Mindcrime wrote:On October 27 2008 04:32 Savio wrote:
The only real issue is if you see the unborn child as a human being or not.
That is not true. Even if embryos and fetuses had personhood, it wouldn't matter. The womb is the woman's and the woman's alone and any occupant of the womb can only remain an occupant if she consents to that occupation. My home is my home and mine alone. Any occupant of my home is subject to death at my pleasing. Now you may say "you can kick people out of your house, so you should be able to kick them out of the womb". But abortion isn't just removing the baby, it often involves stabbing the baby through the base of the skull first and THEN removing it. Or subjecting it to fatal chemicals that kill it, and then removing it. I would have no problem with people waiting until the baby is viable (that is way earlier now a days than it use to be), then inducing labor and then putting the baby up for adoption. That is removing the baby without killing it first. At least then it gets to live and makes its life what it wants and uplift the life of others. and then you either have a parents who dont want their children (guess how well those children are going to be raised) or a lot of orphans if you mandate people who dont want have children raise children you have problems if you have parents who dont want children bearing children and then leaving it to society to provide for them you also have a problem it would be nice if contraception was 100% effective and people only had sex if they wanted and could afford to raise children, but that doesnt happen. Allowing abortion isnt about morals, its about realism
There are still lists of people waiting years to be able to adopt a new born.
Newborns have no shortage of people wanting/waiting to adopt. These are, by and large, people from good homes who will love the child.
Its true that older children may have trouble finding foster parents, but newborns do not.
So, it isn't all about realism.
|
On October 27 2008 05:37 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:24 boghat wrote:On October 27 2008 05:09 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 04:55 Rygasm wrote:
abortion should be a choice of the individual not the government, besides it keeps the population down anyways. We have too many people running around already
/replaces the word "abortion" with "rape". or /replaces the word "abortion" with "murder" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". The latter is a better replacement since it concurs with your second assertion. In other words, this is not a valid argument imo. That's the argument here. All those things are people harming other people. Abortion is not necessarily people harming people, it's a mother removing a fetus. A fetus that belongs to her and is inside her. I read your post about the fetus being a different entity and it makes a good argument if being a different entity is the sole reason the fetus should live. But, no reason to list hyperbolic "replacements" like ethnic cleansing or genocide. Murder I guess you could argue. But if you try to argue that it comes back to if fetuses are human beings, and there is never going to be a definition to satisfy everyone. You murder humans unlawfully, for everything else you just kill it. I am going to argue the abortion point until it finally comes down to the inevitable end point of "Is the fetus a human being". That IS the crux of the argument. Its not about freedom to choose, its not about health, its not about anything else. All of those arguments are easily countered by equating them to doing to to a BORN baby. This is my MAIN point about abortion. The question IS and HAS TO BE whether the fetus is alive and if it is a human being. No other argument will suffice. As soon as it looks like we reach that point, I will simply state I think it IS alive and IS human, then drop the issue because there is no way to convince someone to change their mind about this. They have to do it on their own. But any other argument for abortion should quickly be torn down because it doesn't hold water.
On October 27 2008 05:28 fusionsdf wrote:
Allowing abortion isnt about morals, its about realism
In the end I agree with what fusionsdf said here. Abortion is not just about morality, it's about realism. And the morality of it can be argued back and forth endlessly because the answer is not clear. Morality also means very different things to different people so it's pointless. The argument against you would be you should not be so absolute in your assertion a fetus is a human being because it's not black and white. And you have to look at the realistic aspects of what it does to society and what it does to families and to the children, and not just the philosophical moral aspects.
|
Here is an interesting article that states a fall in the crime rate during the 90s was directly influenced by the Roe Vs Wade case.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_09_27.pdf
In my humble opinion I don't think 99% of people on this website have been in a situation where an unwanted pregnancy would cause them any suffering and have no right to say what is right and wrong.
|
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage.
|
On October 27 2008 05:50 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:37 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 05:24 boghat wrote:On October 27 2008 05:09 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 04:55 Rygasm wrote:
abortion should be a choice of the individual not the government, besides it keeps the population down anyways. We have too many people running around already
/replaces the word "abortion" with "rape". or /replaces the word "abortion" with "murder" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". The latter is a better replacement since it concurs with your second assertion. In other words, this is not a valid argument imo. That's the argument here. All those things are people harming other people. Abortion is not necessarily people harming people, it's a mother removing a fetus. A fetus that belongs to her and is inside her. I read your post about the fetus being a different entity and it makes a good argument if being a different entity is the sole reason the fetus should live. But, no reason to list hyperbolic "replacements" like ethnic cleansing or genocide. Murder I guess you could argue. But if you try to argue that it comes back to if fetuses are human beings, and there is never going to be a definition to satisfy everyone. You murder humans unlawfully, for everything else you just kill it. I am going to argue the abortion point until it finally comes down to the inevitable end point of "Is the fetus a human being". That IS the crux of the argument. Its not about freedom to choose, its not about health, its not about anything else. All of those arguments are easily countered by equating them to doing to to a BORN baby. This is my MAIN point about abortion. The question IS and HAS TO BE whether the fetus is alive and if it is a human being. No other argument will suffice. As soon as it looks like we reach that point, I will simply state I think it IS alive and IS human, then drop the issue because there is no way to convince someone to change their mind about this. They have to do it on their own. But any other argument for abortion should quickly be torn down because it doesn't hold water. Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:28 fusionsdf wrote:
Allowing abortion isnt about morals, its about realism The argument against you would be you should not be so absolute in your assertion a fetus is a human being because it's not black and white.
Its true that it may not always seem black and white. But when did we decide that if we are going err, lets err on the side of "choice" rather than err on the side of "life".
Doesn't life seem important enough that if you are going to err, why not err on the side that preserves the life?
I mean if you were shooting target practice and you knew that someone "might" be behind the target, wouldn't you want to err on the safe side rather than on the dangerous side?
It seems that if it is unclear, we should err on the side that preserves life.
|
On October 27 2008 05:50 LordofToast wrote:Here is an interesting article that states a fall in the crime rate during the 90s was directly influenced by the Roe Vs Wade case. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_09_27.pdfIn my humble opinion I don't think 99% of people on this website have been in a situation where an unwanted pregnancy would cause them any suffering and have no right to say what is right and wrong.
This is a multi-level problem sir, and its never a simple yes or no, if the pregnancy poses a threat to mum's life or if as they say on tv it was produced by mum's dad, then its a completely different story then if its just someone who changed her mind in the last second or is too dum to use a condom.
|
On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage.
mmm in texas a woman could possibly take a coat hanger and kill her unborn and not be charged with murder, if her boyfriend or husband helps he could be charged but not the woman.
|
On October 27 2008 05:50 LordofToast wrote:Here is an interesting article that states a fall in the crime rate during the 90s was directly influenced by the Roe Vs Wade case. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_09_27.pdfIn my humble opinion I don't think 99% of people on this website have been in a situation where an unwanted pregnancy would cause them any suffering and have no right to say what is right and wrong.
I read the actual paper that article was based on.
Thats a paper that neither the pro-life or pro-choice groups like to cite because it makes them both look bad. But it is an interesting study.
|
On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage.
Thanks
|
On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural rights
|
On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage.
You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right?
|
On October 27 2008 05:57 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural rights
I consider peeing to be my natural right. Yet if i pee in NYC ill get a ticket.
Paradox?
|
|
|
On October 27 2008 05:58 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right?
Oh then what are we arguing about, lets all go out and celebrate!
|
On October 27 2008 05:58 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right?
yeah i was kind of confused about that statement
|
On October 27 2008 06:00 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:58 boghat wrote:On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right? yeah i was kind of confused about that statement
i apologize i guess i phrased that poorly, but i didnt consider the current situation of the abortion laws relevant since this is what we're debating.
What i was trying to say is if we dont have power over our own life, how can we have power over something inside of us.
Now that i have to explain myself it doesnt sound all snappy and stuff!
|
On October 27 2008 06:04 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 06:00 XoXiDe wrote:On October 27 2008 05:58 boghat wrote:On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right? yeah i was kind of confused about that statement i apologize i guess i phrased that poorly, but i didnt consider the current situation of the abortion laws relevant since this is what we're debating. What i was trying to say is if we dont have power over our own life, how can we have power over something inside of us. Now that i have to explain myself it doesnt sound all snappy and stuff!
I think I mostly said it because you started off calling people who think the mother has a choice "law-ignorant".
|
On October 27 2008 06:06 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 06:04 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 27 2008 06:00 XoXiDe wrote:On October 27 2008 05:58 boghat wrote:On October 27 2008 05:53 Sfydjklm wrote:
Id also like to point out to the law-ignorant who think the mum has the choice over her womb, she doesnt. Even attempted suicide is technically illegal and always carries penalties, at least in the form of mandatory psychiatric care, and assisted suicide is a harsh crime. You dont even have the rights over your own life, so perhaps you should rethink legislature from ground up before you go on slaying babies rampage. You realize that the mother does have choice over her womb and it is completely legal, right? yeah i was kind of confused about that statement i apologize i guess i phrased that poorly, but i didnt consider the current situation of the abortion laws relevant since this is what we're debating. What i was trying to say is if we dont have power over our own life, how can we have power over something inside of us. Now that i have to explain myself it doesnt sound all snappy and stuff! I think I mostly said it because you started off calling people who think the mother has a choice "law-ignorant".
Bit meself in the ass hasnt I?
|
Abortion isnt cool, but coming from the same guys that think "abstinence" is the way to go, i just cant take your stance seriusly.
Until anti conception methods are heavily enforced in schools, I cant take abortion prohibition seriusly.
|
Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[9] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[10]
* 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% Want no (more) children
* 3.3% Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% Other
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[11] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:
* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other
Im not sure if this numbers Wiki sites are correct or not but if they are how can u possibly support unmonitored abortion?
"I want to postpone the birth of my child. So lets kill this one!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
