Reposting this on last page since i think its interesting.
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!"
On October 27 2008 06:13 D10 wrote: 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.
And whats wrong with abstinence? Let me get this straight, killing babies=OK, not having sex= NOT OK?
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 also think this comparison is pretty weak though and doesn't work. If you really wanted to kill yourself you could probably be successful at it. If you are not successful then there is a good chance you wanted help in the first place and that's what the government is giving you, calling it "illegal" is a bit dumb. If you are not successful because your gun jerked and you blew off your face instead of your brain then you probably wish it was successful. If you attempt to abort your baby and fail I can't think of many circumstances where you didn't wish it was successful. Unsuccessful abortions are going to go way up if they cannot be done legally by professionals. Anyway this is starting to get irrelevant but I don't think that comparison is relevant either.
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!"
Notice "Want to postpone childbearing" is a generic answer though. The next four answers are more specific answers to I want to postpone childbearing. So I don't get your point, these answers are no surprise to anyone.
On October 27 2008 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 27 2008 04:44 Savio wrote: I would like to point out 1 thing.
There is a group of people in the US who think the war in Iraq is OK, but it is wrong to kill unborn babies.
There is another one (most of you here) who argue that that isn't consistent. Yet most of these think the Iraq War is morally wrong, but that it is OK for a woman to kill her unborn baby.
It could be argued that both sides are inconsistent, but the Catholic Church, actually opposes BOTH abortion and the Iraq War (correct me if I am wrong here).
For all the bashing of the Catholic Church I have heard here, it seems like they are the only ones who have a consistent argument.
I am not Catholic but I have a lot of respect for the Church and especially its leaders.
That's probably why the Church was always supporting the wrong sides.
Catholic Church has been supporting right side bourgeois order since ever. They supported all the XIX century kings and dictators. They supported Franco. They supported Mussolini. They supported the Versaillais against the Communard in 1870. They were against Dreifus in France in 1901. They supported all the dictatures in Central and South America: they supported Pinochet, Videla etc etc etc. Their campaign against condom is directly responsible of the death of countless Africans and South Americans theses last 20 years, places were they are very established and people often uneducated. They fought against the distribution of contraceptive pills to raped women in ex Yougoslavia during the civil war. etc etc etc etc etc etc
Catholic Church sucks. Catholic Church is a structure of power, always supporting the strongest and the established order.
What I notice is that in America, the one who fight so much against abortion (sorry, but a 6 weeks foeutus is smaller than half your little finger, so calling it "baby" is a bit exagerated) are also the one defending death penalty.
Imo death penalty is an assassination. A criminal is a human being, whetevr he has done. "Killing" a 5 weeks foeutus is not. A 5 weeks foeutus can't be considered as a human being yet. Especially when the justice system is completely fucked up.
So yeah, republican lack coherence. We knew that already.
The Catholic church has done a lot of bad things in the past, but we are talking about today.
I disagree with them on contraception too.
I am also surprised that people are OK with equating murdering rapists with innocent children.
You went a step further to say the murdering serial rapist is better or "more human" than the child (actually you said fetus, but I have not yet read a coherent argument against the "human-ness" of the unborn child--just "its small"....wow)
Catholic Church hasn't change for shit. It's not about being for or against contraception, but about millions lives they sacrifice for their stupid hate of sexuality.
Now a murdering rapist is a man. Killing him is an assassination. Period.
My point is that a 5 weeks foeutus can't be called a human being.
Do you go to funerals for 5 weeks foeutus? No. Why? Because it's not a person yet. Period also.
On October 27 2008 06:15 Sfydjklm wrote: Reposting this on last page since i think its interesting.
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!"
Notice "Want to postpone childbearing" is a generic answer though. The next four answers are more specific answers to I want to postpone childbearing. So I don't get your point, these answers are no surprise to anyone.
If you dont notice the numbers in the first questionnaire do add up to a hundred, and it just sounds like "i dont really have a good reason." That was always my concern with abortion, i didnt think most of the mums who do it are capable of passing proper judgment on whether they should get one. I just didnt know it was scientifically supported. That said i dont know if it should be legal or not, that was just of the concerns that i thought was important to look at when you make your judgment.
This is tho sorta right up the alley with the "should inmates have the right to vote" question. But of course the first and foremost question of this is are the embryos alive. And you know the rest of the story. Blah blah blah
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 also think this comparison is pretty weak though and doesn't work. If you really wanted to kill yourself you could probably be successful at it. If you are not successful then there is a good chance you wanted help in the first place and that's what the government is giving you, calling it "illegal" is a bit dumb. If you are not successful because your gun jerked and you blew off your face instead of your brain then you probably wish it was successful. If you attempt to abort your baby and fail I can't think of many circumstances where you didn't wish it was successful. Unsuccessful abortions are going to go way up if they cannot be done legally by professionals. Anyway this is starting to get irrelevant but I don't think that comparison is relevant either.
I completely agree with your point and thats why i also sited assisted suicide being illegal. Since abortion is basically assisted infanticide, i thought that comparasion was more then warranted.
Stem cell research is a related topic I'd love to see some discussion on, if there is disagreement on whether or not it should be conducted. If I'm not mistaken, both candidates have expressed their support for stem cell research. I suspect both Sarah Palin and the Catholic Church are against it. Here's a brief video on the subject.
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 also think this comparison is pretty weak though and doesn't work. If you really wanted to kill yourself you could probably be successful at it. If you are not successful then there is a good chance you wanted help in the first place and that's what the government is giving you, calling it "illegal" is a bit dumb. If you are not successful because your gun jerked and you blew off your face instead of your brain then you probably wish it was successful. If you attempt to abort your baby and fail I can't think of many circumstances where you didn't wish it was successful. Unsuccessful abortions are going to go way up if they cannot be done legally by professionals. Anyway this is starting to get irrelevant but I don't think that comparison is relevant either.
I completely agree with your point and thats why i also sited assisted suicide being illegal. Since abortion is basically assisted infanticide, i thought that comparasion was more then warranted.
Regarding my post above about Obama's rally in Denver on Sunday, McCain had a rally in Denver on Friday, two days ago and it attracted 4,000 people. Obama's attracted 100,000+ people. Hmmmmm.
On October 27 2008 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 27 2008 04:44 Savio wrote: I would like to point out 1 thing.
There is a group of people in the US who think the war in Iraq is OK, but it is wrong to kill unborn babies.
There is another one (most of you here) who argue that that isn't consistent. Yet most of these think the Iraq War is morally wrong, but that it is OK for a woman to kill her unborn baby.
It could be argued that both sides are inconsistent, but the Catholic Church, actually opposes BOTH abortion and the Iraq War (correct me if I am wrong here).
For all the bashing of the Catholic Church I have heard here, it seems like they are the only ones who have a consistent argument.
I am not Catholic but I have a lot of respect for the Church and especially its leaders.
That's probably why the Church was always supporting the wrong sides.
Catholic Church has been supporting right side bourgeois order since ever. They supported all the XIX century kings and dictators. They supported Franco. They supported Mussolini. They supported the Versaillais against the Communard in 1870. They were against Dreifus in France in 1901. They supported all the dictatures in Central and South America: they supported Pinochet, Videla etc etc etc. Their campaign against condom is directly responsible of the death of countless Africans and South Americans theses last 20 years, places were they are very established and people often uneducated. They fought against the distribution of contraceptive pills to raped women in ex Yougoslavia during the civil war. etc etc etc etc etc etc
Catholic Church sucks. Catholic Church is a structure of power, always supporting the strongest and the established order.
What I notice is that in America, the one who fight so much against abortion (sorry, but a 6 weeks foeutus is smaller than half your little finger, so calling it "baby" is a bit exagerated) are also the one defending death penalty.
Imo death penalty is an assassination. A criminal is a human being, whetevr he has done. "Killing" a 5 weeks foeutus is not. A 5 weeks foeutus can't be considered as a human being yet. Especially when the justice system is completely fucked up.
So yeah, republican lack coherence. We knew that already.
The Catholic church has done a lot of bad things in the past, but we are talking about today.
I disagree with them on contraception too.
I am also surprised that people are OK with equating murdering rapists with innocent children.
You went a step further to say the murdering serial rapist is better or "more human" than the child (actually you said fetus, but I have not yet read a coherent argument against the "human-ness" of the unborn child--just "its small"....wow)
Catholic Church hasn't change for shit. It's not about being for or against contraception, but about millions lives they sacrifice for their stupid hate of sexuality.
Now a murdering rapist is a man. Killing him is an assassination. Period.
My point is that a 5 weeks foeutus can't be called a human being.
Do you go to funerals for 5 weeks foeutus? No. Why? Because it's not a person yet. Period also.
You still have not given a coherent argument for why a fetus is not a human being. So far your arguments have been:
1. Its small 2. We don't hold funerals for them (not entirely true btw, but I don't want to get into very personal details)
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 also think this comparison is pretty weak though and doesn't work. If you really wanted to kill yourself you could probably be successful at it. If you are not successful then there is a good chance you wanted help in the first place and that's what the government is giving you, calling it "illegal" is a bit dumb. If you are not successful because your gun jerked and you blew off your face instead of your brain then you probably wish it was successful. If you attempt to abort your baby and fail I can't think of many circumstances where you didn't wish it was successful. Unsuccessful abortions are going to go way up if they cannot be done legally by professionals. Anyway this is starting to get irrelevant but I don't think that comparison is relevant either.
I completely agree with your point and thats why i also sited assisted suicide being illegal. Since abortion is basically assisted infanticide, i thought that comparasion was more then warranted.
On October 27 2008 06:38 Doctorasul wrote: Stem cell research is a related topic I'd love to see some discussion on, if there is disagreement on whether or not it should be conducted. If I'm not mistaken, both candidates have expressed their support for stem cell research. I suspect both Sarah Palin and the Catholic Church are against it. Here's a brief video on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U
I support allowing research on stem cells. Even stem cells from embryos with one stipulation: No monetary benefit to the person donating the cells. No markets, no sales, no incentives. Just like any other organ donation. Also no farming of embryos. No embryo creation with the express purpose of killing it for the harvest. Natural miscarriages and even the remains of abortion could be used if donated by the parent.
But I am also against government funding of it, mostly because its a waste of money. If stem cell research really will pay off, then private companies WILL get funding for it.
But people think that stem cells are going to cure every disease known to man and it has become way overblown. People expectations are way above reality.
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 also think this comparison is pretty weak though and doesn't work. If you really wanted to kill yourself you could probably be successful at it. If you are not successful then there is a good chance you wanted help in the first place and that's what the government is giving you, calling it "illegal" is a bit dumb. If you are not successful because your gun jerked and you blew off your face instead of your brain then you probably wish it was successful. If you attempt to abort your baby and fail I can't think of many circumstances where you didn't wish it was successful. Unsuccessful abortions are going to go way up if they cannot be done legally by professionals. Anyway this is starting to get irrelevant but I don't think that comparison is relevant either.
I completely agree with your point and thats why i also sited assisted suicide being illegal. Since abortion is basically assisted infanticide, i thought that comparasion was more then warranted.
Is a 5 weeks foeutus a child?
Nop. So abortion is not an infanticide.
There has been no coherent argument put forward that a fetus is not a child. So why not talk about infanticide?
Boghat, I kinda wanted a response to this. When you said that it is not clear when life begins and I should not look at it as black and white, I said,
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.
You still have not given a coherent argument for why a fetus is not a human being. So far your arguments have been:
1. Its small 2. We don't hold funerals for them (not entirely true btw, but I don't want to get into very personal details)
Abortion can be summed up as follows.
Anthropogenic arbitrary standard A vs anthropogenic arbitrary standard B.
Truth is it doesn't matter when a mass of developing cells gets a needle poked through its neural tube. You can say "human life is such an amazing thing worth protecting at all cost!" Or you can say "fuck this parasite I don't want to be deformed."
EPT
![[image loading]](http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2008/1026/20081026__IMAGE_099~p1.jpg)
