The Abortion Thread... Let it out here

[Forged]

:tissue:

I like the appeal to emotion fallacy, myself, but let's get past that for a moment.

If the hard right didn't love the fetus and hate the child, I wouldn't be so up in arms about a woman's right to choose.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that abortions went DOWN during every single year Clinton was in office, while they have increased since the son of a Bush took over.

It's not about love. It's not about ignorance. It's about financial security. The gap between the haves and have-nots has increased dramatically over the course of the last 5 years, no thanks in part to the puny tax-cut the lower and middle class recieved.

If people don't feel they can care adequately for their children, you do the math. It's not a pretty truth, but it is the truth nontheless.

[Forged]

Originally posted by Tijay
Theres about 100 threads for opinions on women's rights to choose and abortion on this board. Please don't make this another one. I understand that the stance is relevant to your feelings on which judge ends up in place but I'm just asking that you keep it at that rather than making this yet another who thinks abortion is good/bad thread.

Well, Tijay, the sad truth is that this nomination hedges on this very issue. If Bush gets his man/woman, Rowe v. Wade will be overturned, as Mrs. O' Connor will no longer be the swing vote for the upholding judges.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Forged

Well, Tijay, the sad truth is that this nomination hedges on this very issue. If Bush gets his man/woman, Rowe v. Wade will be overturned, as Mrs. O' Connor will no longer be the swing vote for the upholding judges.

Understandable, and like I said I understand that it's relevant to how you feel about which candidates for the seat. But I also think it's possible to express that sentiment based around the candidate rather than going over the issue itself yet again, and if the merits of abortion are what you really wish to discuss I'm just asking that you find one of the existing threads.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Forged
:tissue:

I like the appeal to emotion fallacy, myself, but let's get past that for a moment.

If the hard right didn't love the fetus and hate the child, I wouldn't be so up in arms about a woman's right to choose.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that abortions went DOWN during every single year Clinton was in office, while they have increased since the son of a Bush took over.

It's not about love. It's not about ignorance. It's about financial security. The gap between the haves and have-nots has increased dramatically over the course of the last 5 years, no thanks in part to the puny tax-cut the lower and middle class recieved.

If people don't feel they can care adequately for their children, you do the math. It's not a pretty truth, but it is the truth nontheless.

If you browse all my posts, you will see that I am not a hard right winger. I am left on some issues, right on others.

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy and where the mother wasn't raped. In other words these are cases where abortion is being used as birth control. A simple trip to the pharmacy would have made almost all of these abortions unnecessary.

Now considering the massive waiting lists for adoptions, whatever minute percentage of failure in birth control caused the pregnancy, these cases could be resolved with adoption.

I personally view this callous disregard for the weakest and most vulnerable in our society as abhorrent.

I was wondering what part of my initial post was fallacy? Certainly it is an emotion appeal, like liberals never do that.

FYI Most of your post is irrelevant but nice attempt to obfuscate the issue.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

[Forged]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Forged
:tissue:

I like the appeal to emotion fallacy, myself, but let's get past that for a moment.

If the hard right didn't love the fetus and hate the child, I wouldn't be so up in arms about a woman's right to choose.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that abortions went DOWN during every single year Clinton was in office, while they have increased since the son of a Bush took over.

It's not about love. It's not about ignorance. It's about financial security. The gap between the haves and have-nots has increased dramatically over the course of the last 5 years, no thanks in part to the puny tax-cut the lower and middle class recieved.

If people don't feel they can care adequately for their children, you do the math. It's not a pretty truth, but it is the truth nontheless.

If you browse all my posts, you will see that I am not a hard right winger. I am left on some issues, right on others.

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy and where the mother wasn't raped. In other words these are cases where abortion is being used as birth control. A simple trip to the pharmacy would have made almost all of these abortions unnecessary.

Now considering the massive waiting lists for adoptions, whatever minute percentage of failure in birth control caused the pregnancy, these cases could be resolved with adoption.

I personally view this callous disregard for the weakest and most vulnerable in our society as abhorrent.

I was wondering what part of my initial post was fallacy? Certainly it is an emotion appeal, like liberals never do that.

FYI Most of your post is irrelevant but nice attempt to obfuscate the issue.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

I agree with you that most abortions are highly unneccessary. My problem is that the current government talks big about being about "life", then doesn't back up their own rhetoric with action. I understand it's about winning elections, and saying you will change something many people are emotional about will win you a lot of votes. That is a fallacy. It is appealing to people's emotions instead of using factual information. It's the same as a celebrity endorsement of a product.

Now, my original point about this topic was to address how teens who become pregnant are being put in a bind by the policies put forth by the current administration. Here are some down-home, real-life truths:

1. The government, with its abstinence-only programs, which many studies have shown do nothing to lower sexual activity in teens, are telling America's children that if you have sex, you are a bad person. Since these programs teach nothing about the use of condoms, odds are the children that do have sex are unprotected, increasing their risk of contracting STD's and young women are more likely to become pregnant.

2. Young teen girls that are pregnant are shunned by society. Say what you want to refute it, but it is still true.

3. If a young girl finds out she is pregnant, since both the government and society will look down on her, she will do everything in her power to conceal the pregnancy, either by hiding it or aborting the pregnancy.

Thankfully in my state, as well as in most other states, there is a safe haven law where mothers that give birth can leave the child at a fire station or a police station without fear of prosecution for abandonment. I feel this law should be made a federal law, especially if the government wants to send a positive message about teen pregnancy. However, not many positive things are ever said about teens who become pregnant. This is a sad fact. And people still wonder why abortions still happen.

Anyway, I'm done on this topic. This argument is circular and neither side will likely give an inch. Just let me say that with today's society, Roe v. Wade is essential to protect the young women in this country. Much like Affirmitave Action, I pray one day we won't need such a law, but as it stands today, it is a necessity. President Bush MUST nominate someone that will uphold these laws.

As we all know it is the governments responsibility to teach people about safe sex.
Hi mom, Hi dad.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Forged
I agree with you that most abortions are highly unneccessary. My problem is that the current government talks big about being about "life", then doesn't back up their own rhetoric with action. I understand it's about winning elections, and saying you will change something many people are emotional about will win you a lot of votes. That is a fallacy. It is appealing to people's emotions instead of using factual information. It's the same as a celebrity endorsement of a product.

Now, my original point about this topic was to address how teens who become pregnant are being put in a bind by the policies put forth by the current administration. Here are some down-home, real-life truths:

1. The government, with its abstinence-only programs, which many studies have shown do nothing to lower sexual activity in teens, are telling America's children that if you have sex, you are a bad person. Since these programs teach nothing about the use of condoms, odds are the children that do have sex are unprotected, increasing their risk of contracting STD's and young women are more likely to become pregnant.

2. Young teen girls that are pregnant are shunned by society. Say what you want to refute it, but it is still true.

3. If a young girl finds out she is pregnant, since both the government and society will look down on her, she will do everything in her power to conceal the pregnancy, either by hiding it or aborting the pregnancy.

Thankfully in my state, as well as in most other states, there is a safe haven law where mothers that give birth can leave the child at a fire station or a police station without fear of prosecution for abandonment. I feel this law should be made a federal law, especially if the government wants to send a positive message about teen pregnancy. However, not many positive things are ever said about teens who become pregnant. This is a sad fact. And people still wonder why abortions still happen.

Anyway, I'm done on this topic. This argument is circular and neither side will likely give an inch. Just let me say that with today's society, Roe v. Wade is essential to protect the young women in this country. Much like Affirmitave Action, I pray one day we won't need such a law, but as it stands today, it is a necessity. President Bush MUST nominate someone that will uphold these laws.

Protecting the life of an unborn child and providing money to shiftless adults are two separate issues, but as my posts bear out I am not a Bush fan.

1. I have no problem with promoting abstinence only programs as long as they are non-judgmental and there are programs on sex education and birth control.

2. I guess it depends where you live. When I use to go to church, eons ago, (I currently vacillate between agnostics, atheist, and deist) pregnant unmarried young women in the congregation were loved, welcomed and helped. I use to go to an Anglican church. However I wouldn’t argue with you that young pregnant girls are treated poorly in parts, which is a shame.

3. I think this is opinion as opposed to fact. I am all for encouraging young women to carry their children to term at which point they can choose to raise them or have them adopted.

I disagree with you on any need for Roe vs. Wade. In my opinion death is not a choice. I would support any sane initiative to help mothers keep their children.

My main point is that with 98% of abortions being elective, a simple trip to the pharmacy would have avoided the pregnancy. Condoms are freely available in the west; it is irresponsible to have sex without birth control. If one does get pregnant out of neglect the least they could do is have the child adopted.

I am for a strict constructionist who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Atlanteax]

Pro-Choice should be the Standard, not Pro-Life.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy... [Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

Yet it's the abortions that ARE for the mother's health which are illegal.

Let's just stick our heads up our own asses, make a disgusting description of a dilation and extraction procedure, and then pass legislation limiting the medical options a doctor and patient has.

That sounds like a plan!

:smilegrin:

[Keller]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Pro-Choice should be the Standard, not Pro-Life.

I didn't see that coming.

You must have a cool wife.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy... [Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

Yet it's the abortions that ARE for the mother's health which are illegal.

Let's just stick our heads up our own asses, make a disgusting description of a dilation and extraction procedure, and then pass legislation limiting the medical options a doctor and patient has.

That sounds like a plan!

:smilegrin:

You will have to educate me, which law prevents abortion to save a women's life?

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy... [Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

Yet it's the abortions that ARE for the mother's health which are illegal.

Let's just stick our heads up our own asses, make a disgusting description of a dilation and extraction procedure, and then pass legislation limiting the medical options a doctor and patient has.

That sounds like a plan!

:smilegrin:

You will have to educate me, which law prevents abortion to save a women's life?

Dilation and Extraction (D&X, short hand) is the OMGBADBADBAD partial birth abortion.

[CrystalTears]

Partial births SHOULD be illegal. It's a brutal procedure.

[Warriorbird]

Of course the life of the child is valued more than the mother...

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
You will have to educate me, which law prevents abortion to save a women's life?

Dilation and Extraction (D&X, short hand) is the OMGBADBADBAD partial birth abortion.

If a partial birth abortion is necessary in some cases to save a women's life, why isn't it taught in medical schools?

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

[Keller]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Partial births SHOULD be illegal. It's a brutal procedure.

<Waits patiently for someone else to post the "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" description while COMPLETELY missing the point, again>

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc

Approximately 98% of all abortions in America are abortions on demand. These are cases where neither the mother nor child is in jeopardy... [Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

Yet it's the abortions that ARE for the mother's health which are illegal.

Let's just stick our heads up our own asses, make a disgusting description of a dilation and extraction procedure, and then pass legislation limiting the medical options a doctor and patient has.

That sounds like a plan!

:smilegrin:

You will have to educate me, which law prevents abortion to save a women's life?

Dilation and Extraction (D&X, short hand) is the OMGBADBADBAD partial birth abortion.

If a partial birth abortion is necessary in some cases to save a women's life, why isn't it taught in medical schools?

Are you Rich Santorum?

[Warriorbird]

Rick Santorum. Spell his name right.

;)

[xtc]

Please just answer the question?

[Keller]

As I am not the curriculum coordinator for any medical school you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Warriorbird]

Just a wild guess from current law: maybe because they're illegal?

I think you summed up my views on abortion pretty well when you said it attacks the weakest and most defenseless members of society... I just feel they're pregnant women.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just a wild guess from current law: maybe because they're illegal?

Only recently did this happen, and it has never been taught in American medical schools to my knowledge.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think you summed up my views on abortion pretty well when you said it attacks the weakest and most defenseless members of society... I just feel they're pregnant women.

and unborn children



[Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

[Warriorbird]

No no. That's your anti-woman view. I was explaining mine.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course the life of the child is valued more than the mother...

Who the fuck ever said this? Because I felt that partial births should be illegal? Any death that requires someone to jab a pair of scissors into the back of a head into the brain is too much to bear. Not even murderers get treated so brutally at their final sentence.

Although I'm not one to state whose life is more important, since to some the child is, to others it's the mother. I feel that all lives are important.

[Warriorbird]

All the people who advocate the unborn over the born. Whole lot of people.

I'm so happy for their sake that we'll see the return to back allies and coathangers. So happy. They're such good Americans. Positive moral people.

It makes me feel even better that some of them will likely soon be able to prevent their children that they impregnated from dealing with it. Folks like that lovely guy who whacked all his kids that he had with his kids...

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Keller]

Let's call then fetuses since their unborn and that's the medical terminology, k?

An argument has some tremendous fallacies when it's most convincing evidence is the use of semantics to obscure morals.

Also, xtc, I looked up the Supreme Court Case and medical schools don't teach them because according to "medical science" pregnancy is terminated at the onset of the birth process.

Now a question for you ...

If it were not a medically viable treatment why would doctors recommend D&X for their patients?

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just a wild guess from current law: maybe because they're illegal?

Only recently did this happen, and it has never been taught in American medical schools to my knowledge.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by xtc]

How can you count a Rick Santorum quote as knowledge? Where the fuck do you get off?

[CrystalTears]

So people who are against casual abortions are against the born? You're twisted.

I've said before that if it means the life of the mother and/or child and is medically necessary, I have no problem with abortions (just not partial). Nor for people who were raped and caused a pregnancy. Or especially for minors.

I have a serious problem with the ones who do it because they fucking feel like it because they weren't better protected when they were having sex.

[Keller]

I am done with this thread.

xtc and I are bound to disagree. He is bound to discredit my argument by posting personal information of mine. And CT just doesn't understand what's at stake.

I'm done.

[Warriorbird]

Right. Because they deserve to have their lives ruined, CT. They deserve an unwanted child or one that won't be taken care of well. It is their responsibility to "raise a child to give away" even if it ends the possibility of education for them... the possibility of a career for them... their standing in a community.

Family values!

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Whatever. I'm done with this thread too when I'm told that I don't care about lives. I'm tired of being insulted for my beliefs. Thanks.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
Let's call then fetuses since their unborn and that's the medical terminology, k?

I call it as I see it.


Originally posted by Keller
Also, xtc, I looked up the Supreme Court Case and medical schools don't teach them because according to "medical science" pregnancy is terminated at the onset of the birth process.

I think you just proved my point.


Originally posted by Keller

Now a question for you ...

If it were not a medically viable treatment why would doctors recommend D&X for their patients?

As they were not taught it in medical school, I am left to assume they are practicing medical politics

[Warriorbird]

Hilarious. Of course... those mothers should die. Family values!

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Right. Because they deserve to have their lives ruined, CT. They deserve an unwanted child or one that won't be taken care of well. It is their responsibility to "raise a child to give away" even if it ends the possibility of education for them... the possibility of a career for them... their standing in a community.

Family values!

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

Most of these people had so little regard for themselves that they couldn't spend 10 minutes to go the pharmacy. Now we should punish a child for the parents disregard & stupidity? If these people don't want the child there are legions of people who want to adopt it. You can go to school for 90% of your pregnancy. Your education needs very little interruption to save a life.

[Warriorbird]

"Whatever. I'm done with this thread too when I'm told that I don't care about lives. I'm tired of being insulted for my beliefs"

I rarely discuss it myself. Xtc insulted everyone who favors my moral position repeatedly. He feels pro-choice people don't care about lives? I feel remarkably similar about pro-life people. I've seen the damage this sort of thinking can do. I've seen people denied a life because of the views of reprehensible religious freaks who sure as fuck won't support the baby that they forced some poor girl to keep. Family values should mean a complete family. A family with a child they want.

Amusingly enough, my second cousin was once the Republican Speaker for the Virginia House of Delegates. He was involved in pressuring my friend's family into making her keep her child. Later on, he got kicked out of his position because he paid money to his secretary to keep her from talking about a sexual assault.

That's Republican family values to me.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Hilarious. Of course... those mothers should die. Family values!

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

Site one example where this law prevented a mother whose life was in jeopardy from having an abortion to save her life?

[ElanthianSiren]

Just a question -- how do you prove someone was irresponsible having sex? Maybe the condom broke. Maybe her dose on the pill or depo wasn't strong enough. Further, Rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove.

A lot of things can happen, and you can't prove one or the other. That's one problem with the whole "Abortion as a form of birth control." argument. I feel honestly, anyone who does practice abortion as a form of birth control needs some serious psychological counselling, but they would need to admit that freely before I would accuse them of that.

While abstinence is the only way to assure non impregnation or non acquirement of an STD, you're an idealist dreamer if you think teens aren't going to go out and have sex. Further, you're endangering some very young and vulnerable individuals teaching that kind of stance. Responsible sex ed has to come from all sides (family, schooling, ministry etc) because kids get the flip side very often from peers, which in a split moment can seem more important than good sense to people who value peer to peer relationships.

Further, abortion has to be kept legal, safe, and rare. Yes, I did just borrow a phrase from Clinton. Attack at will. It's a good stance to have, and I hope Bush is responsible enough to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who recognizes the fact that this is not the 1950s.

-M

[Edited on Wed, July th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Warriorbird]

"Most of these people had so little regard for themselves that they couldn't spend 10 minutes to go the pharmacy. Now we should punish a child for the parents disregard & stupidity? If these people don't want the child there are legions of people who want to adopt it. You can go to school for 90% of your pregnancy. Your education needs very little interruption to save a life."

Let's make more unwanted children in the world! How great! I'm sure you'd carry a child to give away! Oh wait! You're not a woman!

You curiously also support pharmacists denying people birth control pills. I'm sure that'll be next on the court docket after Roe V. Wade falls.

"You can go to school for 90% of your pregnancy. Your education needs very little interruption to save a life."

Except, curiously, it can have ruinous effects on one's abilities. It can also have ruinous effects on one's ability to get hired. It also costs a whole lot, and such people may have no support. Generally they don't, because churches love to turn on the "immoral".

[Warriorbird]

"I hope Bush is responsible enough to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who recognizes the fact that this is not the 1950s"

Nah. They like back allies and coathangers.

[Warriorbird]

Sure, xtc. When you can prove to me that there's 100% effective birth control other than abstinence.

Oh wait! Just abstinence. Guess you hate sex too as well as mothers.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Let's make more unwanted children in the world! How great! I'm sure you'd carry a child to give away! Oh wait! You're not a woman!

Considering the massive waiting list for adoptions I fail to see where unwanted comes into play. If you become pregnant carrying the child so another family can raise it, is the least one could do.


You curiously also support pharmacists denying people birth control pills.

Pharmacists, not pharmacies. If you re-read my posts you will see I state a pharmacy must always have on staff a pharmacist willing to fill a birth control script, but lets not get sidetracked.


"You can go to school for 90% of your pregnancy. Your education needs very little interruption to save a life."

Except, curiously, it can have ruinous effects on one's abilities. It can also have ruinous effects on one's ability to get hired. It also costs a whole lot, and such people may have no support. Generally they don't, because churches love to turn on the "immoral".

I fail to see the massive inconvenience? 9 mos for most of which one can work or go to school. Here I weigh inconvenience against the life of a child.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Sure, xtc. When you can prove to me that there's 100% effective birth control other than abstinence.

Oh wait! Just abstinence. Guess you hate sex too as well as mothers.

Come on get real, condom effectiveness is 98%. I say that is pretty good and if everyone who had sex wore one that would go a long to reducing unexpected pregnancies.

There is of course the issue of AIDS that condoms prevent as well.

[Warriorbird]

"Considering the massive waiting list for adoptions I fail to see where unwanted comes into play. If you become pregnant carrying the child so another family can raise it, is the least one could do."

A decision you'll never have to make. Let me become pregnant for someone else's kid! Let the kid be raised by some parents who aren't his biologically! Family values! The kid might've not existed if birth control had not failed in some way.

Then again, you favor abstinence... because people obviously shouldn't be having sex if they're not procreating. Damn that sexual pleasure. Repress it all costs!

"You curiously also support pharmacists denying people birth control pills."

I think this is still hilarious, considering your "ten minute" statement about birth control. Sidetracked? Not hardly.

"I fail to see the massive inconvenience? 9 mos for most of which one can work or go to school. Here I weigh inconvenience against the life of a child."

They should clearly work on male pregnancy. You should also read Freakonomics.

[Warriorbird]

"Come on get real, condom effectiveness is 98%. I say that is pretty good and if everyone who had sex wore one that would go a long to reducing unexpected pregnancies.

There is of course the issue of AIDS that condoms prevent as well."

Then again... pharmacists shouldn't have to sell them, after all.

Every sperm is sacred?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by xtc
Considering the massive waiting list for adoptions I fail to see where unwanted comes into play. If you become pregnant carrying the child so another family can raise it, is the least one could do.

When men start having babies I'll value a man's word on this and actually debate why I don't agree.


Originally posted by xtc
Pharmacists, not pharmacies. If you re-read my posts you will see I state a pharmacy must always have on staff a pharmacist willing to fill a birth control script, but lets not get sidetracked.

So you support them being fired for not doing their job (fulfilling prescriptions) too right?


Originally posted by xtc
I fail to see the massive inconvenience? 9 mos for most of which one can work or go to school. Here I weigh inconvenience against the life of a child.

There are many inconveniences to having a child; further, it is like any surgery or hospital stay. It's dangerous; for something you don't want and have no stake in, I feel that's asking a lot.

-M

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I've seen the damage this sort of thinking can do. I've seen people denied a life because of the views of reprehensible religious freaks who sure as fuck won't support the baby that they forced some poor girl to keep.

Unless she got raped, no one is denying her anything. She denied herself it by getting pregnant.

Terminating an eventual breathing baby isn't the solution.

It's hysterical how you act like the baby just appeared in her womb.


Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
When men start having babies I'll value a man's word on this and actually debate why I don't agree.


When women can become pregnant by themselves with a baby that is 100% their genetic makeup I'll actually respect this opinion as something other than retarded.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Date rape.

[Hulkein]

So basically you're arguing for around 2% of the abortions that occur in the United States each year.

Talk about a fucking straw man argument.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Considering the massive waiting list for adoptions I fail to see where unwanted comes into play. If you become pregnant carrying the child so another family can raise it, is the least one could do."

A decision you'll never have to make. Let me become pregnant for someone else's kid! Let the kid be raised by some parents who aren't his biologically! Family values! The kid might've not existed if birth control had not failed in some way.

So love the child enough to see it live. Failure rate of condoms 2%. Are you basing your entire argument on 2%?


Then again, you favor abstinence... because people obviously shouldn't be having sex if they're not procreating. Damn that sexual pleasure. Repress it all costs!

I said no such thing but I guess it is easier for you to believe this. I am also not a Republican or a church attender. My beliefs are closest to Buddhist.


"You curiously also support pharmacists denying people birth control pills."

As I stated just moments ago I believe every pharmacy should at all times a pharmacist on staff who will dispense a birth control prescription. I personally am I big believer in birth control.




"I fail to see the massive inconvenience? 9 mos for most of which one can work or go to school. Here I weigh inconvenience against the life of a child."

They should clearly work on male pregnancy. You should also read Freakonomics.

So because I am a man I am not entitled to have a say on the matter? What about all the women who are pro-life like Crystal tears?

[Warriorbird]

I'd argue for the non 2% as well. Unlike you, I don't like blaming the victim.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Date rape.

Again what % of all abortions does this represent? Your arguments are getting weak.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I've seen the damage this sort of thinking can do. I've seen people denied a life because of the views of reprehensible religious freaks who sure as fuck won't support the baby that they forced some poor girl to keep.

Unless she got raped, no one is denying her anything. She denied herself it by getting pregnant.

Terminating an eventual breathing baby isn't the solution.

It's hysterical how you act like the baby just appeared in her womb.

No, we act as though there is the technology to abort a mass of cells, and it should be legal, safe, and rare that such a thing occurrs.

It should be a woman's choice further, and it has as much to do with the circumstances of that pregnancy as well at the woman. That is why blanket abortion statements fail. Like, in one thread, would you have tried to make Jazula's player have the baby she was carrying with an almost assured risk of a debilitating spinal disorder?

Again, when men start having babies, I will start having sympathy for your plight as "OMG! a cute featus died!" over "this kid was raised in less than adequate life conditions because someone felt an obligation to have it backed mostly by the male need to push on their lineage".

-M

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'd argue for the non 2% as well. Unlike you, I don't like blaming the victim.

Whatever you claim you'll argue for, the fact is you're trying to justify abortion by taking the circumstances that exist for approximately 2% of the people who have abortions.

That's called a piss poor argument.

Edited to add quote.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Again a low percentage. I also know people who've gotten there through birth control issues and had to make tough decisions. Curiously enough, the one who ended up forced into not getting the abortion is doing a whole lot worse than the one who did.

All from people in the upper 10% of my rural Virginia high school class. Pretty pathetic when you think about it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'd argue for the non 2% as well. Unlike you, I don't like blaming the victim.

So the 98% of people who are too stupid or lazy to wear condoms are victims? I would say the unborn child is the victim.

In the minute % of cases where a women has been raped I would provide a provision to allow for abortion. Some raped women have chosen to keep and raise the child.

[Warriorbird]

So. You going to start having Timecops check for birth control use, Hulkein?

[ElanthianSiren]

To really make an accurate assessment of all "permissive" abortions would be interesting.

Date Rape
Rape (in general)
Incest
Probability of Physical/Mental disorders
Danger to the mother
Failure of condoms (2%)
Failure of pills
Failure of depo

I think a lot of the things being argued as insignificant here, probably add up to a large number of abortions in actuality.

-M

[CrystalTears]

I'm pro-life, not anti-abortion. I'm pro-birth control, anti-partial birth. I'm also.. OMG.. female. Apparently the reason my beliefs are worth beans is because I'm a Catholic Republican, because that's all Warriorbird can ever focus on.


No, we act as though there is the technology to abort a mass of cells, and it should be legal, safe, and rare that such a thing occurrs.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

You keep on saying rare, but you also said that nothing can be proven. So what stipulations do you have for the rare, which is basically what I'm advocating as well?

[Edited on 7/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

"In the minute % of cases where a women has been raped I would provide a provision to allow for abortion."

Condoms were used in both cases that I knew in which it was an issue. Then again, these were all theoretically smart people. In places filled with "abstinence education" and overblown Christian nonsense, condoms are used less.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ElanthianSirenLike, in one thread, would you have tried to make Jazula's player have the baby she was carrying with an almost assured risk of a debilitating spinal disorder?

Again, this is such a rare case it's fallacious to use it as an arguement for a reason to keep abortion as a means for birth control.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

And you're a very low percentage of the Republican party, CT, rationalizing for the rest of it.

They're nice people like me! They just hate women!

;)

[Warriorbird]

"Again, this is such a rare case it's fallacious to use it as an arguement for a reason to keep abortion as a means for birth control. "

Yet, again, you're distorting the issue, versus people who want it thrown out entirely who are in a position to make that happen.

I'm also far from sure your "figures" are accurate. We know how effective abstinence education is, right?

[CrystalTears]

WTF am I rationalizing??!

Say that I'm part of a low percentage that feel this way (although I'd like proof of that crap), but quit including Republicans in the clause because it's not such a black and white stance. Goddamnit.

[Edited on 7/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by ElanthianSirenLike, in one thread, would you have tried to make Jazula's player have the baby she was carrying with an almost assured risk of a debilitating spinal disorder?

Again, this is such a rare case it's fallacious to use it as an arguement for a reason to keep abortion as a means for birth control.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Hulkein]

Prove it's being used as a means of birth control.

I will never disagree that I think abortion is sad. I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her body or make financial/emotional decisions for that woman based on religious rhetoric (that may or may not apply to her mode of thinking).

You can say all those cases are rare, but how would you prove them? Devise a better system, and let's talk.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

No, we act as though there is the technology to abort a mass of cells, and it should be legal, safe, and rare that such a thing occurrs.

Each and every one of us is a mass of cells. The technology exists to blow up the world, that doesn't mean we should do it.


It should be a woman's choice further, and it has as much to do with the circumstances of that pregnancy as well at the woman. That is why blanket abortion statements fail. Like, in one thread, would you have tried to make Jazula's player have the baby she was carrying with an almost assured risk of a debilitating spinal disorder?

Of course circumstances of a pregnancy are important. If two people are too lazy or stupid to buy condoms then a perfect healthy baby should be born. Don't punish the child for the parents stupidity.

In rare cases where a child will live with horrible deformities or the mothers life is in danger exceptions should be made. But lets be clear about this currently 98% of abortions are on demand.


Again, when men start having babies, I will start having sympathy for your plight as "OMG! a cute featus died!" over "this kid was raised in less than adequate life conditions because someone felt an obligation to have it backed mostly by the male need to push on their lineage".
-M

What a rant. Respect for life is where my opinion comes from. As I have stated numerous times before waiting lists for adoptions are massive. Families that have been approved and deemed qualified are waiting for children.

Again condoms can avoid almost all unexpected pregnancies.

[Forged]

Good Lord WTF happened here? It's like a fucking cyclone hit it.

Let's cut to the chase:

Fact 1: Abortion sucks

Fact 2: In a perfect world, it would never happen

Fact 3: This world is not perfect

With these facts in mind, we all need to understand that the life of the mother should take precedence in any circumstance.

This very issue is the very crux of the issue. In my opinion, I think the Democrats should just give them this issue. Make abortion completely and utterly illegal under any circumstances.

Let the others deal with the fallout.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by xtc

If two people are too lazy or stupid to buy condoms then a perfect healthy baby should be born. Don't punish the child for the parents stupidity.

In rare cases where a child will live with horrible deformities or the mothers life is in danger exceptions should be made. But lets be clear about this currently 98% of abortions are on demand.

Do you plan to travel back in time to make sure that the reason given is correct? Or do you plan to address the cases of reported rapes that would go up exponentially with prerequisites put on abortion? How do you plan to prove it's being used as a means of birth control?

I will never disagree that I think abortion is sad. I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her body or make financial/emotional decisions for that woman based on religious rhetoric (that may or may not apply to her mode of thinking).

You can say all those cases are rare, but how would you prove them? Devise a better system, and let's talk.

-M

[Artha]

based on religious rhetoric
Because 'murder is bad' is religious rhetoric.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Artha

based on religious rhetoric
Because 'murder is bad' is religious rhetoric.

Discussion of religion isn't an alternate solution, nor is the discussion of what does or doesn't constitute life. I'm really interested in how those who are pro life would address this issue.

-M

[Forged]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by xtc

If two people are too lazy or stupid to buy condoms then a perfect healthy baby should be born. Don't punish the child for the parents stupidity.

In rare cases where a child will live with horrible deformities or the mothers life is in danger exceptions should be made. But lets be clear about this currently 98% of abortions are on demand.

Do you plan to travel back in time to make sure that the reason given is correct? Or do you plan to address the cases of reported rapes that would go up exponentially with prerequisites put on abortion? How do you plan to prove it's being used as a means of birth control?

I will never disagree that I think abortion is sad. I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her body or make financial/emotional decisions for that woman based on religious rhetoric (that may or may not apply to her mode of thinking).

You can say all those cases are rare, but how would you prove them? Devise a better system, and let's talk.

-M

Just to add on to the previous comment:

I would agree about the "stupid lazy" comment about not using condoms if it was still being taught how to use one in a sex ed class. Unfortunately, with the current Bush authorized and increasingly funded but completely disproven abstinence only programs, it is not happening.

If you have a response about my comment about parents needing to teach their children about that stuff, save it. If that was the case, there shouldn't be any abstinence only programs in schools either.

So don't go blaming the government's ignorance on the people.

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Do you plan to travel back in time to make sure that the reason given is correct? Or do you plan to address the cases of reported rapes that would go up exponentially with prerequisites put on abortion? How do you plan to prove it's being used as a means of birth control?

Statistics show that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape.


I will never disagree that I think abortion is sad. I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her body or make financial/emotional decisions for that woman based on religious rhetoric (that may or may not apply to her mode of thinking).

I put the life a child before the feminist movement. I am pro-equal rights. If men could have children I would feel exactly the same.


You can say all those cases are rare, but how would you prove them? Devise a better system, and let's talk.
-M

I prove them using statistics from a pro- choice study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

A better system, ok first off outlaw all abortion on demand and make sex education including a compenent on birth control mandatory in all high schools. I would make exceptions for instances where the mother's life was in danger, rape and extreme deformities in the baby. I would also increase funding for adoption centres. I would cut taxes on all birth control products. I would also have tax credits for child care progressively based on income and systems in place to help single mothers. This is just off the top of my head, I am sure I could think of more.

Not very Republican eh?

[ElanthianSiren]

I mean a system to deal with the consequences of repealing abortion. There are many and involve border control as well. Are you prepared to employ that many extra police?

I doubt the stance that abortion should be made totally illegal goes over well with most voters, especially ones that have conditions that ensure pregnancy as death. Do we just tell these people to abstain from all sex under your system?

What do you tell the doctors/healthcare co's who make a bundle on abortion when that business goes to canada or mexico?

How do you go back in time to make sure the reported rapes happened?

How do you go back in time to make sure the condom broke?

Your thoughts are good and idealistic, however, repeal of abortion would be a dismal failure in the 21st century.

-M

[Forged]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Do you plan to travel back in time to make sure that the reason given is correct? Or do you plan to address the cases of reported rapes that would go up exponentially with prerequisites put on abortion? How do you plan to prove it's being used as a means of birth control?

Statistics show that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape.


I will never disagree that I think abortion is sad. I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her body or make financial/emotional decisions for that woman based on religious rhetoric (that may or may not apply to her mode of thinking).

I put the life a child before the feminist movement. I am pro-equal rights. If men could have children I would feel exactly the same.


You can say all those cases are rare, but how would you prove them? Devise a better system, and let's talk.
-M

I prove them using statistics from a pro- choice study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

A better system, ok first off outlaw all abortion on demand and make sex education including a compenent on birth control mandatory in all high schools. I would make exceptions for instances where the mother's life was in danger, rape and extreme deformities in the baby. I would also increase funding for adoption centres. I would cut taxes on all birth control products. I would also have tax credits for child care progressively based on income and systems in place to help single mothers. This is just off the top of my head, I am sure I could think of more.

Not very Republican eh?

One question? What the hell is with people thinking this whole issue is some sort of feminist movement? It's easy to spout all sorts of shit about "if I could carry a baby I would say the same thing" when you KNOW you don't really have to do it.

Look, I am a man. I have no right at all to tell a woman if she should carry a child or not. It's completely up to her. Yes, even if it was my child.

[Delirium]

I would agree about the "stupid lazy" comment about not using condoms if it was still being taught how to use one in a sex ed class. Unfortunately, with the current Bush authorized and increasingly funded but completely disproven abstinence only programs, it is not happening.

Seriously, who doesnt know that using condoms prevents unwanted pregnancies and stds. Its not like using condoms takes a harvard education to figure out. As well as if you watch any tv(which i assume most americans do,especially teens) then the point is hammered home time after time.

Now while i think abortion is bad, i dont think id want it to be illegal. If it was illegal and there were exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother what would stop a woman from just stating they were raped? Would they have to prove it in court? Would that have to name the rapist? I think it would have to almost come down to being trusted without that. Therefore would making it illegal make any real difference?

I think abortion is just one of those necessary evils. Dont have to like it,,can even scorn its use. For cases where it isnt rape/incest/health of the mother i think there can even be a stigma against getting one. Making it illegal however when its already been legal for so long, i wonder the wisdom of that.

[Delirium]

One question? What the hell is with people thinking this whole issue is some sort of feminist movement? It's easy to spout all sorts of shit about "if I could carry a baby I would say the same thing" when you KNOW you don't really have to do it.

Look, I am a man. I have no right at all to tell a woman if she should carry a child or not. It's completely up to her. Yes, even if it was my child.

Therefore if you arnt a minority you should have no say in affirmative action or any other minority issue. I hate this argument as it just silly. Just because something doesnt directly effect me doesnt mean my point of view is invalidated. Since someone isnt in the military does that mean their view of war is pointless? If someone isnt a politician does that mean their view of diplomacy is worth nothing?

[Forged]

Originally posted by Delirium

One question? What the hell is with people thinking this whole issue is some sort of feminist movement? It's easy to spout all sorts of shit about "if I could carry a baby I would say the same thing" when you KNOW you don't really have to do it.

Look, I am a man. I have no right at all to tell a woman if she should carry a child or not. It's completely up to her. Yes, even if it was my child.

Therefore if you arnt a minority you should have no say in affirmative action or any other minority issue. I hate this argument as it just silly. Just because something doesnt directly effect me doesnt mean my point of view is invalidated. Since someone isnt in the military does that mean their view of war is pointless? If someone isnt a politician does that mean their view of diplomacy is worth nothing?

There is a difference between the things that you describe and this issue. The issues you describe are ones that directly affect a LOT of people. This issue should, like terry shiavo, be a family decision, not a government decision.

[Delirium]

Here is where i disagree again then. I think protecting the innocent is societies job. By your reasoning do you think if a child is acting up and just to hard to deal with the family could make a decision to off the kid in question? Im not trying to say a fetus is the same as a child, as they arnt. Just trying to follow your line of reasoning.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by xtc
A better system, ok first off outlaw all abortion on demand and make sex education including a compenent on birth control mandatory in all high schools. I would make exceptions for instances where the mother's life was in danger, rape and extreme deformities in the baby. I would also increase funding for adoption centres. I would cut taxes on all birth control products. I would also have tax credits for child care progressively based on income and systems in place to help single mothers. This is just off the top of my head, I am sure I could think of more.

Yep, you totally freak me out when you and I agree. I'm for all of that.

I was going to make a case about "proving" rape, but that's another tangent that's just going to get me ostracized around here, so forget it. :P

[Warriorbird]

Pff. You're not ostracized. You're in the majority.

Abortion is going to become illegal. I find that pretty pathetic, but America will have to live with it. If you want me to put forth my honest view, Roe V. Wade actually is unconstitutional on the grounds it was based on. States really should have the ability to decide on the issue, but then it would be a constant back and forth on whether it was legal or not.

I hope the "pro-life" crowd will be happy with back allies and coathangers.

[Edaarin]

When women waive the right to child support, I'll fully be behind the "It's 100% the woman's decision" idea.

Of course, there are exceptions, so don't get on my back about the hypothetical rapist.

[CrystalTears]

I don't know why you feel so certain about abortion becoming illegal. I don't see it. And if they decide to nominate Alberto Gonzalez, who happens to be soft on abortion and isn't as conservative as Bush with some issues, I think he's going to go with the people and keep it legal. I just wish it weren't such an easy thing to obtain is all.

[Warriorbird]

Hey. I'm a pretty big advocate of prenups for people that's going to be an issue for, Edaarin.

[Warriorbird]

I'm pretty sure, CT. Just have to look who's pulling the strings.

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Hey. I'm a pretty big advocate of prenups for people that's going to be an issue for, Edaarin.

Isn't that just for married people...?

[Warriorbird]

True. I think there ought to be some sort of agreement for non married people too. I'd never thought of that. Maybe a law school paper in it.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm pretty sure, CT. Just have to look who's pulling the strings.

Like the strings he tried to pull for Terry which fell flat because the Supreme Court said no? Oh yeah. Right. He's a great puller. Silly me.

[Warriorbird]

Ralph Reed has Bush's number. Far right radical Christianity is one of the reasons Bush won. Bush's core supporters are a neocon/religious right alliance.

Under a strict constructionist interpretation, Roe V. Wade is illegal. The Schiavo's case was wrong under a strict constructionist interpretation, which made it difficult for conservatives to get it past conservative strict constructionist judges (the Court.)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Forged
The issues you describe are ones that directly affect a LOT of people.700,000 abortions a year * 3 (man, woman, child) = 2,100,000 people BEFORE multiple births.
Originally posted by Keller
If it were not a medically viable treatment why would doctors recommend D&X for their patients?Doctors used to recommend cocaine for morphine addiction too. How'd that work out?
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
how do you prove someone was irresponsible having sex?Easy process:
If one was having consentual sex that could result in pregnancy, and one is unable or unwilling to care for a child, that is irresponsible.
Further, you're endangering some very young and vulnerable individuals teaching that kind of stance.That's odd, I was about to say the same thing about you.
I will disagree with any man who tries to tell a woman what to do with her bodyI really don't get how fetuses count as the woman's body.
What do you tell the doctors/healthcare co's who make a bundle on abortion when that business goes to canada or mexico?Someone wake up Backlash.

People before profits!! Jesus.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Generally they don't, because churches love to turn on the "immoral". Yeah, there's no way for someone to Reconcile with the Church. :jerkit:
Then again, you favor abstinence... because people obviously shouldn't be having sex if they're not procreating. Damn that sexual pleasure. Repress it all costs!Get a vasectomy. You don't even have to go under, for Pete's sake.

And as a general statement:
Pro-lifers hate women and want to steal their rights away exactly as much as pro-choicers hate babies and want to kill them. It's an idiotic statement from other side, and really has to stop (Warriorbird).

(p.s: Melissa: It was Jolena whose kid had the spine thing. Jazuela, ironically, has a spinal disorder of her own, but as far as I know no kids with one.)

[ElanthianSiren]

And now, let's calculate, how many people do pro-choicers force their stance on like pro-lifers? Hmmmm. None. I still say, if you want an abortion, go have one. If you're against abortion, don't have one.

If you want to talk about making abortion illegal again, be prepared to discuss the financial and moral problems inherent with doing so. Again, how are you going to go back in time to assure that an abortion is unworthy?

-M
edited because I never finished a thought.

[Edited on Thu, July th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[CrystalTears]

It's not going to become illegal again. Stricter with each state perhaps, but not illegal. I just honestly don't see that happening, nor the overturning of RvW. It's just not.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Again, how are you going to go back in time to assure that an abortion is unworthy?If you really feel like talking math, I'm surprised that you could even ask this. There are about 80,000 rapes per year, and about 700,000 abortions (these are reported numbers, I reckon the actual figures are a bit higher for both). The numbers don't even come close. It's not morally acceptable to toss away 160,000 lives, but in place of 700,000? :shrug: How can you choose the 160,000?
And now, let's calculate, how many people do pro-choicers force their stance on like pro-lifers? Hmmmm. None.How'd you manage to interview every aborted fetus? Even if you never slept, that's barely 45 seconds to get to each one.

edit: If you're for bank robbery, go do it. If you're against it, don't.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[ElanthianSiren]

That's my point, CT. There are too many problems with making it illegal in the 21st century. Hell, when it was illegal decades ago, U.S. citizens used to journey to England to have abortions.

IMO it's an awesome ideal if every baby was wanted, if couples engaged in sex with the knowledge that a baby may come (all birth control has its limitations) and was prepared for that, if no children needed to go hungry or poor. I say these things honestly, despite any impressions you may garner from my stance on abortion.

You have to look at the issue realistically. Abortion will always happen and has always happened. Making it illegal again would just incite 1. more unwanted children born to lower class individuals who could not afford to go to England or wherever we're journeying this century, 2. more people dying of toxic shock and bloodloss trying to rid themselves of featuses at home. 3. red tape to individuals who did legitimately require abortions for medical reasons. 4. a further stigma to rape victims in forcing them to disclose that they were raped. 5. loss of monetary imput to workers (docs) in this country. 6. unhappy, unhealthy kids reared in improper environments.

-M

[Warriorbird]

"Doctors used to recommend cocaine for morphine addiction too. How'd that work out?"

They still use methadone for heroin treatment and cocaine for heart surgery. Next!

"Pro-lifers hate women and want to steal their rights away exactly as much as pro-choicers hate babies and want to kill them. It's an idiotic statement from other side, and really has to stop (Warriorbird). "

I didn't insult anyone till xtc annoyed me. Take that up with him.

"Get a vasectomy. You don't even have to go under, for Pete's sake."

Right. I'm sure teens duped with your abstinence education bullshit are going to line up for that one.

:shrugs: Doesn't matter. You've won. I hope the consequences are appealing.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

If you really feel like talking math, I'm surprised that you could even ask this. There are about 80,000 rapes per year, and about 700,000 abortions (these are reported numbers,

I'd bet you almost anything if abortion was illegal again, rape numbers would absolutely rise. Again, how do you distinguish between "she's actually been raped" and she hasn't, as many rape victims wait to report rape.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
How'd you manage to interview every aborted fetus?

A fetus is not a person. It's a mass of cells that may become a person.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If you're for bank robbery, go do it. If you're against it, don't.

Yes, and live with the moral and social consequences of your actions. I doubt there is any woman, any woman, who runs around screaming "OH YES!!! I JUST HAD MY 800000000000TH ABORTION! OMFG! PARTY TIME!" I know that idea may romanticize your argument to you, but I doubt it's the case.

-M

[Edaarin]

You've all convinced me to completely change my beliefs.

I realize now that I've been thinking the wrong way for almost 21 years. Thank you for opening my eyes. I can't believe it took me so long to see the light.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go inform everyone else in my faith that we've been wrong this whole time.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Again, how are you going to go back in time to assure that an abortion is unworthy?If you really feel like talking math, I'm surprised that you could even ask this. There are about 80,000 rapes per year, and about 700,000 abortions (these are reported numbers, I reckon the actual figures are a bit higher for both). The numbers don't even come close. It's not morally acceptable to toss away 160,000 lives, but in place of 700,000? :shrug: How can you choose the 160,000?


The estimated number of adoptions in 2000 and 2001 was about 127,000 per year (http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_adopted/index.cfm) so just to make things easier lets say all of them were from the united states (which is hardly true) where are you putting those other 573,000 children?

[Warriorbird]

"If you'll excuse me, I have to go inform everyone else in my faith that we've been wrong this whole time."

Thanks so much. Five more and I win a microwave.

Seriously, I mainly just got a bit heated due to the insult in another thread. Don't worry, Roe V. Wade will get overturned.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We know how effective abstinence education is, right?

I'm not arguing for abstinence education.

I'm arguing for owning up to your own mistakes. If you have sex and become pregnant, you have a responsibility. It is no secret that when you have sex, there is a chance you can create a human being. Having a shitty life already isn't a reason to not ever give the kid a chance.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I'd rather kids have loving parents who want it... and who are actually the kid's parents. I'd rather have a mother want her child. Call it my perverse sort of family values.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. I'd rather kids have loving parents who want it... and who are actually the kid's parents. Call it my perverse sort of family values.

Here, here. I'd also rather have kids whose parents are prepared (as much as they can be) for parenthood and have atleast some degree of security for their child to be brought up in.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Prove it's being used as a means of birth control.

Half of the arguments I'm seeing here are based on it being used as a type of birth control!

The other half are based on situations that are so rare that if it was still allowed (in cases like severe health problems, rape) the amount of abortions taking place would drop by like 90%.

When you're telling me to prove to you that it's used as a method of birth control, you're just playing semantics.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Having a shitty life already isn't a reason to not ever give the kid a chance. Unfortunately, that is exactly the kind of life most of the babies end up having. They are also the kind of people that society eventually wants nothing to do with.

I think it is way to easy to just say, own up to ones mistakes, when their entire life is riddled with them and they usually help with creating generations of others who will continue to rely on the government for their welfare.

I also don't understand how some people (general) can be against welfare yet are also pro-life.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. I'd rather kids have loving parents who want it... and who are actually the kid's parents. I'd rather have a mother want her child. Call it my perverse sort of family values.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

So would I... absolutely.

However, since that isn't possible, my thought process doesn't jump to KILL THE BABY.

Sorry, I guess I'm just narrowminded.

"Kill the kid if it will be born into a tough life!"

Sounds like a lot of the greatest people in our world would've been terminated if that was the case for everyone.

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
You have to look at the issue realistically. Abortion will always happen and has always happened.
-M

murder will always happen and has always happened, that does not mean we should make it lawful.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
You have to look at the issue realistically. Abortion will always happen and has always happened.
-M

murder will always happen and has always happened, that does not mean we should make it lawful. It works for wars, why not abortion.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Having a shitty life already isn't a reason to not ever give the kid a chance.

I don't think it's too much of a disconnect to say that if someone is willing to abort that odds are that they didn't want or couldn't properly care for that child and that child was never was going to have a real chance. Although I'm still curious where we are going to put and how we are going to care for all of these kids that you are so far being born. Like DEV i have a hard time how people can be against welfare and yet for prolife. We care so much about the potential of these fetuses while we squander tons of potential in the inner city with poor education standards yet I rarely see a huge outcry to aid stop aborting the potential of the inner city youth.

[Hulkein]

<< I don't think it's too much of a disconnect to say that if someone is willing to abort that odds are that they didn't want or couldn't properly care for that child and that child was never was going to have a real chance. >>

The kid always has a chance.

I also wish I could see statistics on who is getting the abortions for birth control reasons. I'd be interested in seeing how many of these people legitimately cannot afford the kid.

I can't answer what you do with all the extra kids, I don't have that information at hand. All I'm doing is voicing my moral belief.

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
You have to look at the issue realistically. Abortion will always happen and has always happened.
-M

murder will always happen and has always happened, that does not mean we should make it lawful. It works for wars, why not abortion.

Innocence

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein

I can't answer what you do with all the extra kids, I don't have that information at hand. All I'm doing is voicing my moral belief.

Which is certainly your prerogative but at what point do you have to ground your moral beliefs in some sort of reality? I mean I agree in a utopic society things like abortion probably wouldn't exist but thats utopia...

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Tijay]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
Innocence Kids get killed in war. They are innocent too.

800,000?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tijay

Which is certainly your prerogative but at what point do you have to ground your moral beliefs in some sort of reality? I mean I agree in a utopic society things like abortion probably wouldn't exist but thats utopia...

I think it is grounded in reality.

If I were making this decision I'd have the statistics I want at hand.

I'd be able to tell how many people who have abortions really cannot afford the kid, no matter what.

You list all these extra kids after adoption, who is to say that these abortions aren't being done to people with the means to support it?

I think the country would adjust just fine. It's not like we're overpopulated in relation to many other countries. Plus, If we're able to give BILLIONS in aid to other countries, I think we'd be able to set aside a nice chunk of change if something as huge as the repeal of abortion were to go down. This money could be used as needed if there ended up being a huge crisis.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
800,000? Does this mean if the numbers were less, you'd change your stance. I doubt it.

Good often comes from the violence of war. The world is a better place after evil is destroyed.

The numbers are not reveresed, though many of the "children" you speak of are not so innocent, ya know the ones with bombs strapped to them.

[Warriorbird]

"Sounds like a lot of the greatest people in our world would've been terminated if that was the case for everyone. "

Considering percentages, that would be a pretty small number. After all, abortion reduces violent crime.

[Warriorbird]

"Plus, If we're able to give BILLIONS in aid to other countries, I think we'd be able to set aside a nice chunk of change if something as huge as the repeal of abortion were to go down."

Conservatives hate giving anyone money. It'd just go elsewhere.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
Good often comes from the violence of war. The world is a better place after evil is destroyed.

The embryonic stem cells of aborted featuses can be used to kill many of the world's most debilitating and destructive diseases and conditions.

-M

<---against using dead babies for scientific experements. Id suffer a desease to let the child live. Not like the research is not leagal in other countries, let them come up with the cures. Oh wait, too bad nobody is as good as the U.S.
It's a good thing our president values the life of a child. Not to mention the American public voting him into office for a second time even after he, as you all say, "stole" the first election

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Dave]

[ElanthianSiren]

But, see, none of that whole sphele you just put out was the point of your original contention:

Good often comes from violence.

BTW -- in Japan and England, they've cured diabetes with stem cell research successfully in several patients. You might want to check your "nobody does it as well as the U.S." attitude at the door.

-M

You ignored the innocent death comment from before I think hon.
Which in addition to the comment was the original intent.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
You ignored the innocent death comment from before I think hon.
Which in addition to the comment was the original intent.

Who defines innocence?

in·no·cence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sns)
n.
The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Dave
in·no·cence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sns)
n.
The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.

Well, then I wonder why you're not all for abortion. Original sin and all, you know.

-M

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein

I think it is grounded in reality.

If I were making this decision I'd have the statistics I want at hand.

I'd be able to tell how many people who have abortions really cannot afford the kid, no matter what.

• Poverty. Women with incomes below 200% of poverty made up 30% of all women of reproductive age, but accounted for 57% of all women having abortions in 2000: Twenty-seven percent of abortions were obtained by women living below the poverty line, and another 31% by women with incomes of 100-199% of poverty. The concentration of economically disadvantaged women among those having abortions was greater in 2000 than in 1994, when 50% of women obtaining abortions had incomes of less than 200% of poverty.

Abortion rates decreased as income rose, from 44 per 1,000 among poor women to 10 per 1,000 among the highest-income women. In 1994 as well, women with incomes below 200% of poverty had higher abortion rates than higher-income women. However, between 1994 and 2000, rates decreased among middle- and higher-income women, whereas they increased among poor and low-income women.

The high abortion rates among economically disadvantaged women were partly due to high pregnancy rates—133 per 1,000 for poor women and 115 per 1,000 for low-income women. As income increased, pregnancy rates declined, and women with the highest incomes had a pregnancy rate of 66 per 1,000. These women were the least likely to abort their pregnancies (15%), and poor and low-income women were the most likely to do so (33%).

link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602)

Btw 200% above poverty is roughly 34k/yr with I believe upto 3 children.

If you'd like a state by state, race, martial status, age, weeks of gestation, etc. breakdown:

CDC Abortion Surveillance for 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)


You list all these extra kids after adoption, who is to say that these abortions aren't being done to people with the means to support it?

Well if over half of abortions are coming from women who are considered low income or poor (200% above poverty level and below) and +/- 82% of women having abortiong are unmarried (I don't have a stat for single sorry) I think it's fair to say the majority of women having abortions are not in a position to take care of these children. You are free to disagree however as the above is an opinion of mine based on the information I had available to me.



I think the country would adjust just fine. It's not like we're overpopulated in relation to many other countries. Plus, If we're able to give BILLIONS in aid to other countries, I think we'd be able to set aside a nice chunk of change if something as huge as the repeal of abortion were to go down. This money could be used as needed if there ended up being a huge crisis.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. With the general tone of contempt I believe there to be against helping the impoverished and supporting those who can't support themselves I don't believe this to be true. Obviously you believe differently though.

And just another link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html) that I found interesting on the relationship between abortion, adoption, and unwanted children.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Tijay]

[Kyra]

Originally posted by xtc


Of course circumstances of a pregnancy are important. If two people are too lazy or stupid to buy condoms then a perfect healthy baby should be born. Don't punish the child for the parents stupidity.

What a rant. Respect for life is where my opinion comes from. As I have stated numerous times before waiting lists for adoptions are massive. Families that have been approved and deemed qualified are waiting for children.

Again condoms can avoid almost all unexpected pregnancies.

Okay, so I have 3 friends who have gotten pregnant after surgical sterilization, all of them had children in their teens & all 3 chose abortions. I suppose they are just lazy bitches who were content with the amount of children they had & felt safe in their choice of birth control...guess they should have worn a condom?? WTF?

I have 3 children & 1 was given up for adoption. I would abort in a hot second before I would ever go through that emotional trauma again. Should abortion be deemed illegal I would find a coat hanger & or a back alley dr. to do it & chance DYING before it would happen.

Unless you've actually been there/done that don't try telling ANY woman to "just have it & give it up".

K.

[SpunGirl]

I wonder if the anti-choicers are against all abortions, surgical and medical.

Are you against the practice of a woman ingesting drugs that will cause her ueterine lining to shed even if she's already pregnant? If so, then why?

-K

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by SpunGirl]

Not one, Not two, but three friends
:hikes up his pant legs so they dont get bullshit on them:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Plus, If we're able to give BILLIONS in aid to other countries, I think we'd be able to set aside a nice chunk of change if something as huge as the repeal of abortion were to go down."

Conservatives hate giving anyone money. It'd just go elsewhere.

I was explaining what I would do, not what the Warriorbird talking point would say happen.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
I wonder if the pro-lifers are against all abortions, surgical and medical.



I'm not.

If it is a case where the child is in such a bad physical state and determined it will die soon after birth, I'd be ok with abortion there.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Hulkein]

[SpunGirl]

I think that's good, Hulkien, but I should clarify the question. I'm referring simply to the method, not the reason.

-K

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by SpunGirl]

[Hulkein]

Can you be a little more clear on the method? Not sure what it is or when it is done.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think she's talking about
Penneroyal Tea

which I believe you can find recipes for online. Free exchange of information also adds to the interesting roadblocks toward making abortion illegal.

-M

[SpunGirl]

Yep. A medical abortion is one using drugs, not physical means (like a vaccum) to get rid of the tissue and anything else lining the woman's uterus. On day one she takes a drug that loosens the lining. 24 hours later, she takes some other pills that will essentially induce a miscarriage and cause all of the lining to shed, which would include any fertilized eggs.

-K

Edited to add: I've heard of teas, too, but a medical abortion can be done as late as nine weeks and is used often by Planned Parenthood.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by SpunGirl]

[Hulkein]

Most I know about Pennyroyal tea is that it's a Nirvana song. :smilegrin:

[Hulkein]

You talking about something like the day after pill, Spun?

Tell you the truth I'm a little torn there.

I know girls who have taken it and I don't look any differently at them. I know this is a little hypocritical but if you're taking the day after pill because a condom broke or something... well, I dunno, I can't really fault you there. Plus you're not even sure if you're pregnant.

It's tough, that's why I wouldn't ever want the full outlaw of abortion.

Let's put it this way, if I had a choice between A- No abortion, but the day after pill has to go as well, and B- The way it is now, I'd probably have to choose A.

It'd probably be a lot easier for my arguments sake to just say 'NO I HATE DAY AFTER PILL' but I'm gonna be honest and say I'm not sure, and I know that is a little hypocritical.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
in·no·cence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sns)
n.
The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.

While trying not to touch too much on your tangent about war or murder it's also difficult to respond and not. Anyway I'm not really sure war and abortion are appropriate parallels but whatever for the sake of arguement people are 'murdered' pr 'die' in either instance (depending on your stance of whether or not abortion is murder). Yet by saying most of the children who die as a byproduct of war, atleast in Iraq, aren't innocent that would be that innocence exists beyond the womb. So are the soldiers who die on either side innocent? where does innocence begin and end? why is it okay to 'murder' one innocent for a 'good cause' but not another? Who determines a good cause? Do we care about the lost potential of men and women who die as aresult of war? Is there sacrifice/murder/death okay acceptable for the greater good? Can abortion too then serve the greater good?

Basically I'm not really expecting you to answer any of these questions because they are all rhetorical. They are more intended to show that if you can create a parallel between war/murder and abortion and that violence/murder is okay if it's for the greater good? Then can abortion too not be violence/murder for the greater good? As it helps fight overpopulation, unwanted children, financial burden, etc.?

[SpunGirl]

That's an honest answer, though what is it that bothers you about it? And it's not really the day after pill - like I said, it can be done as far in as nine weeks, so the woman definitely knows they're pregnant.

Here's a link that explains it: http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-medical-abortion.xml

I guess the reason I'm asking is that a lot of anti-choice people feel that the whole vaccum method is barbaric and gross... so I wonder if a medical abortion, which essentially induces a miscarriage, is any different.

-K

[ElanthianSiren]

http://www.sisterzeus.com/Pennyroyal.htm






Pennyroyal
American Pennyroyal (Hedeoma pulegoides)
European Pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium)

Pennyroyal is a well-known abortificant which causes the uterine muscles to contract, it is said to be very effective and is sometimes combined with Blue Cohosh, or mugwort. It is believed to be most effective as tea, drunk while hot. Either the fresh or dried herb can be used, some think a tea made from the fresh herb may be more effective, but at this time there is not enough information available to make a determination of which is better, if you purchase herbs of good quality it may not make any difference. For more information on purchasing herbs.

During American colonial times a tablespoon of brewers yeast was frequently added to a freshly brewed cup of pennyroyal tea to induce abortion. This combination is mentioned in King's American Dispensatory in the late 1800's, as "reputed to be a safe and effective abortifacient".

The essential oil of pennyroyal should NEVER be used internally even in small amounts it is a deadly poison, and is not a pleasant way to die, two young women from Colorado died from pennyroyal oil poisoning the doctors could do nothing to save them as their organs failed, they died a very painful death, lets learn from their tragic mistakes and not loose anyone else this way. The essential oil may be used externally only, but is very potent, if rubbed on the skin it can cause irritation. The oil of pennyroyal is VERY concentrated. It has been estimated by University of Illinois pharmacognosist Norman Farnsworth, PhD (a leading researcher on herbal emmenagogues and abortifacients) that one would have to drink 50-75 gallons of pennyroyal tea to equal a fatal dosage of pennyroyal oil. The tea poses little to no fatality hazard. Uni Tiamat writes: "I have found Pennyroyal leaf infusion to be very effective and safe in my own herbal abortion experience. But caution, anything in excess may be damaging." 4

After drinking pennyroyal tea for any length of time, or any other abortificients, it is advisable to soothe the after effects by consuming a nourishing teas and eat a healthy well balanced diet. See taking care after herbal abortion. Abortifacients can be taxing on the kidneys and liver, anyone with health problems, especially with the liver or kidneys should consult with an herbalist or midwife before consuming any of these herbs, read more about who should not use these herbs.

Susun Weed lists this recipe in The Child Bearing Year:

Emmenagogue Brew
2 tablespoons (Tbsp) dried Blue Cohosh Root
(substitute 20 drops of blue cohosh tincture to each cup)
3 Tbsp dried pennyroyal leaves
2 Tbsp dried Tansy in flower
Boil the Blue Cohosh in a quart of water (if the tincture is used, skip this step, just boil the water) for 5 minutes.
Place the pennyroyal and tansy in a glass quart canning jar (or equivalent). Pour the boiled water (with the blue cohosh - if you used the dried herb) into the jar, cap and allow to steep for 30 minutes. Strain the herbs out and reheat before using. If you use the blue cohosh tincture add 20 drops after reheating the tea.
Together these 3 herbs can produce profuse menstrual flow in sensitive women. The usual dose, is a steaming hot cupful every four hours, day and night, for up to 5 days or until bleeding is well underway. The effectiveness of this formula is enhanced by the addition of tablespoonful of brewers yeast to every cup. 3

For the blue cohosh you may want to use a tincture, an alcohol extract is the best way to capture the uterine contracting properties of blue cohosh, its properties are not very soluble in water. Meaning an alcohol extract would be stronger. To modify the recipe to use the tincture, add 20 drops of the tincture to each cup of tea just before drinking it. In her book, she calls for the dried herb, so you decide how you want to do it, it's your choice.

Susun calls American Pennyroyal "one of the most powerful of all emmenagogues" She recommends a dose of 20 drops of tincture in a cup of hot water. Not more than four cups per day and for no more than 5 days to induce menstruation with out taxing the woman. 3

One herbalist gave me this recipe: And told me to listen to my body.


20 drops each of blue cohosh and black cohosh tinctures, every 2 hours
Drink a cup of pennyroyal and rue tea using the dried herb, every four hours for several days.
Other sources suggest these dosages:
Take as whole plant steep as tea or in tincture form into hot water. No more than three cups a day. Very effective. Can mix with blue cohosh to help cramping. Side effects: nausea, numbness in extremities, dizziness, sweating. Too much is highly toxic and the essential oil is deadly. 12

Standard Infusion (leaves and flowers): Steep 15-30 min, 1/4 - 3/4, 3-4 hours.
Standard Tincture: 20-60 drops (1/4 to 1 tsp.) 3-4 hours.
Powdered Leaves and Flowers: 3-8 size #0 capsules, frequently. 4

The most common side effect with this herb seems to be nausea, and it seems to affect the majority of women who use this herb. So if you choose to use this herb be aware of this and plan to take it easy, and expect you won't feel your best.

The essential oil of pennyroyal should NEVER be used orally/internally. It is a deadly poison. Several women have died very painful deaths from ingesting small amounts of the essential oil in an attempt to end suspected pregnancy. Ending pregnancy is not worth risking your life, or damaging you organs.

Small amounts of the essential oil of pennyroyal may be used externally (on the skin). Essential oil is highly concentrated and only a few drops should be used since it tends to be irritating to the skin. A drop or two can be placed on the center-forehead, or third eye, sometimes strong uterine contractions will result for about an hour. I tried this once and felt absolutely nothing.

If you have access to the fresh pennyroyal herb you can make an oil infusion by soaking the fresh herb in olive oil. This preparation is also for external use, it may be rubbed into the bottoms of the feet, and into the abdomen, there are also uterine points on your archillies tendon, massaging them with a oil infuse with pennyroyal may also be helpful by encouraging uterine contractions. The oil infusion is not as concentrated as the essential oil, it will not irritate the skin and more liberal amounts may be used.

Words to the Wise: Uni Tiamat writes: Anyone with kidney disease or damage should not use Pennyroyal.4 I think those with a history of kidney stones should also avoid using pennyroyal. She also notes that after one week, if you have not obtained results, discontinued taking for continued use may damage the central nervous system, the kidneys and the liver. 4




Not pleasant sounding in the least, but I'm sure it would still do the trick.

-M

[Delirium]

I guess the reason I'm asking is that a lot of anti-choice people feel that the whole vaccum method is barbaric and gross... so I wonder if a medical abortion, which essentially induces a miscarriage, is any different.

Thats a big difference for me. Logical rational stuff aside. I think thats much better and i wouldnt mind even if my own girlfriend had done that. I also like the fact that it has to be done in the first nine weeks. I wonder what the %'s are of this kind of abortion and the other kind. Heh the anti choice people, that has a certain Limbaughesque ring to it. I guess those for abortion are the anti-lifers?

[SpunGirl]

Meh... I'd say if you're not pro-choice, you're definitely anit-choice. But it doesn't go the same way for pro-life and anti-life, because of the discrepancy and debatability on when life begins. But it's certainly a valid question:)

Onto the other bit, why do you think it's different, and why wouldn't you mind?

-K

[Delirium]

I think the main difference to me is there is no slippery slope. It has to be done in the first nine weeks. I agree the other way as well, it is less barbaric and gross. If the child does have the ability to feel pain id much rather go out with a med than being vaccumed to death as well. So its a bonus both ways, it seems more humane and it has to be done sooner when the kid is less developed. Save the vaccum of death for murderers and rapists.

[CrystalTears]

A fetus is not a person. It's a mass of cells that may become a person.

May? No, left alone it WILL become a person, and that mentality is what I'm against.

"Personhood" is the biggest pile of malarky I've ever heard in order to rationalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy. What/who determines a person? C'mon now.

I'm not against abortion, nor would I want to see it become illegal again. The only practice that I'm against is partial births. Other than that, the other methods don't bother me. The concept of destroying a life, I don't care how, out of convenience, is what puts me off and disturbs me.

I suppose it's the permanency of the decision. You can make most decisions in this world and usually have the chance to change your mind later and do it. This is one of those where all you are left with are what-ifs. You would never know what good the baby would have been to this world. Cheated someone of a life that they had no choice in having. Just seems selfish to me to constantly say "it's my body" when it's not the only body being affected and they have no say in the decision. It all makes me sad is all. Just how I feel.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I don't see most "pro-life" people caring much about the mother at all. I doubt it is an easy choice for anyone involved, no matter what may be said.

[StrayRogue]

It should be the woman's choice. If they're pro-life then let them have it. If not then, again, its their choice. No one should be able to tell anyone else what to do with their own body.

[Parkbandit]

For the record.. I'm pro-choice.

I expect some big time liberal loving.

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Dave
in·no·cence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sns)
n.
The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.

While trying not to touch too much on your tangent about war or murder it's also difficult to respond and not. Anyway I'm not really sure war and abortion are appropriate parallels but whatever for the sake of arguement people are 'murdered' pr 'die' in either instance (depending on your stance of whether or not abortion is murder). Yet by saying most of the children who die as a byproduct of war, atleast in Iraq, aren't innocent that would be that innocence exists beyond the womb. So are the soldiers who die on either side innocent? where does innocence begin and end? why is it okay to 'murder' one innocent for a 'good cause' but not another? Who determines a good cause? Do we care about the lost potential of men and women who die as aresult of war? Is there sacrifice/murder/death okay acceptable for the greater good? Can abortion too then serve the greater good?

Basically I'm not really expecting you to answer any of these questions because they are all rhetorical. They are more intended to show that if you can create a parallel between war/murder and abortion and that violence/murder is okay if it's for the greater good? Then can abortion too not be violence/murder for the greater good? As it helps fight overpopulation, unwanted children, financial burden, etc.?

Im sorry you can not see the difference Tijay. Your bias wont allow you to.

There is a obvious difference between the malicious murder of an innoncent child (abortion) and that of one killing another in war.

[Sean]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

A fetus is not a person. It's a mass of cells that may become a person.

May? No, left alone it WILL become a person, and that mentality is what I'm against.


And if truely left alone it will die as human infants are fragile and not ready to fend for themselves out of the womb. Children, more specifically newly borns, require a certain level of care of and nuturing before they can reach this 'potential' for life that we keep hearing about. So my question is still whose going to provide that level of care to these new borns. It's my opinion that poverty level or not these women who are willing to abort either don't feel capable of are unwilling to care for them.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. I don't see most "pro-life" people caring much about the mother at all. I doubt it is an easy choice for anyone involved, no matter what may be said.

Pro-life people don't care about the mothers, pro-choice don't care about the unborn children. Let's consider everyone insensitive and selfish pricks and agree to disagree. :rolleyes:

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
Im sorry you can not see the difference Tijay. Your bias wont allow you to.

There is a obvious difference between the malicious murder of an innoncent child (abortion) and that of one killing another in war.

Obviously it isn't as obvious as you'd like to think... so lay it on me. What is the difference. And if your answer is simply innocence then my question is who are you to decide who is or is not innocent.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Tijay]

[CrystalTears]

In war, people aren't targetting the innocent children. As horrific as the loss of innocent lives is, they are unfortunately casualties of war. Abortion is all about removing an unwanted child.

[Jazuela]

1) The fetus -may- become a child. It might not. All kinds of things could happen naturally to cause the fetus to die before it ever leaves the womb. So to claim that every aborted pregnancy is by definition murder, is patently false.
2) The difference between murdering someone who is already born and someone who hasn't been born yet is staggering. The fetus is physically attached to its host. It is incapable of existing without that physical attachment. Someone who is already born is capable of existing without that attachment - and in fact, IS existing without that attachment. This is why some pro-choice people compare pregnancy with a factory machine. The car has an engine, and the engine can run, but without the car, the existence of the engine is pointless. Same with a fetus. It has a blob-like form, but few (if any) other organs up to a certain point. The blob-like form functions, but without anything for it to function with, it is pointless. At the point where most of the other organs don't exist yet, it is not a person. Or an unborn child. Or an unborn anything. It is just a mass of cells which may or may not grow into something at some future date.
3) Partial birth abortion just creeps me out. If the fetus has grown to a point where it can function without being attached to the womb, then it should be removed via c-section. However, I haven't done much in educating myself on this, mostly because the idea of it just creeps me out as I said. Maybe there might be some situations where the newly-born infant would be grossly mutated/deformed to the point where it cannot survive (like with half their brain missing and the other half exposed). But you'd think these things would be discovered before the fetus gets big enough to experience an actual birthing process. I dunno.
4) As for my actual opinion on the whole pro-life issue: It's easy to be an armchair moralist. But I'd like to see some of these people - in fact, ALL of these people - put their money where their mouths are. When every single pro-life/anti-abortion politician opens their homes to unwanted children without prejudice or reservation, I will consider changing my opinion. Until then, it's none of their business what some other woman wants to do with her body, or what a doctor chooses to do for his/her patient.

How many of these pro-life politicians who make laws for everyone else have adopted unwanted children? If the answer isn't ALL OF THEM - then they have no business making demands on pregnant women.

[CrystalTears]

1) The fetus -may- become a child. It might not. All kinds of things could happen naturally to cause the fetus to die before it ever leaves the womb. So to claim that every aborted pregnancy is by definition murder, is patently false.

I'm not talking about the possibility of sickness, sudden death or anything like that. I'm just ruling out the possibility that it would be anything but a person if it is left alone.


2) The difference between murdering someone who is already born and someone who hasn't been born yet is staggering. The fetus is physically attached to its host. It is incapable of existing without that physical attachment. Someone who is already born is capable of existing without that attachment - and in fact, IS existing without that attachment.

A fetus is still a premature person. I just don't like to hear people say that it's not a person just because it can't live on it's own. How about all the elderly and sick people who live on machines and aren't aware of their surroundings? Are they no longer people now?

[Jazuela]

The elderly are capable of existing without being attached, physically, to another human being. I thought I was extremely clear on that. That is the criteria. If your body can function, without being physically attached to another human being..then you are an individual person. If your body cannot function without being attached physically to another human being, then no - you are not a person. You are a parasite.

Machines aren't people. Incubators aren't people. Tubes stuck in your orifices and needles in your veins and metal things surrounding you to breathe for you are not people. They have nothing to do with this debate, and it is - ironically amusing, in a rather sick sort of way, that anyone would even attempt to compare an iron lung with a pregnant woman.

[Latrinsorm]

War vs. abortion:
War is just as bad as abortion in quality, but quantity dictates that we worry about abortion first. Not even the most liberal estimates of civilian casualties put Iraq on the level of abortion.

Induced miscarriage = abortion. Doing it naturally certainly makes it less grotesque, but the intent and result are the same.

Fetuses as people:
Fetuses are human.
Humans are people.
The difference between a sperm and egg and a fertilized egg is far, far more spectacular than the difference between a baby inside a womb and a baby outside of a womb. Therefore, the moment of birth being more important than the moment of conception is a claim that requires some kind of proof.
Most humans are not self-sufficient. Most humans are not killed. Therefore, self-sufficiency cannot be a premise for termination.

Putting my money where my mouth is:
I am currently unable to support anyone besides myself. This does not mean I no longer have a responsibility to prevent a widower from microwaving his HIV-positive 2 month old.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't see most "pro-life" people caring much about the mother at all.You need to look harder.

[Warriorbird]

Right. You need to get off the Internet and take a look around. I have. If you've ever actually observed the "pro-life" forces in action, they're pretty fucking sick.



[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Those are extreme cases, and people in the extreme of any organization are strange in their views.

I don't understand "forces" that bomb abortion clinics and such. Such advocates for life and they kill people to do it. Makes NO sense to me.

[ElanthianSiren]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Induced miscarriage = abortion. Doing it naturally certainly makes it less grotesque, but the intent and result are the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And yet, if there are 700k abortions a year in this country, what makes you think that if abortion is made illegal, with the advent of the internet and its ease of information location, those women won't find a way to dispose of the cells themselves?

I found that recipe for abortion in 3 seconds. It was easy. Forcing people to rely on those types of remedies, is only going to seriously endager the pregnant woman. Or do you think people won't find/use those remedies? Pennyroyal tea is only one; there is at least one more that comes from Louisianna -- New Orleans specifically and their whore houses ages ago.

-M

and people say conservatives don’t have a heart....

[Warriorbird]

And they were right. It is the core of the philosophy.

[ElanthianSiren]

Any first year botany student knows what induces the types of stomach cramping necessary to abort a fetus. There are many herbs that will do this, and the great majority of them are plentiful throughout the U.S..

I don't think it has much to do with political views, more with the necessary reliance on unsafe measures in the face of legality. Again, do you honestly believe that women WON'T find out these recipes if they really desire an abortion or do you plan to try to return the US to the days of non communication to stop that from happening?

-M

[Warriorbird]

They don't like it when you talk about sex. That's supposed to be for procreation only.

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Any first year botany student knows what induces the types of stomach cramping necessary to abort a fetus. There are many herbs that will do this, and the great majority of them are plentiful throughout the U.S..

I don't think it has much to do with political views, more with the necessary reliance on unsafe measures in the face of legality. Again, do you honestly believe that women WON'T find out these recipes if they really desire an abortion or do you plan to try to return the US to the days of non communication to stop that from happening?

-M

Perhaps more couples will practice safe sex if abortion is illegal. Thus making the need for herb induced abortions unnecessary.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Any first year botany student knows what induces the types of stomach cramping necessary to abort a fetus. There are many herbs that will do this, and the great majority of them are plentiful throughout the U.S..

I don't think it has much to do with political views, more with the necessary reliance on unsafe measures in the face of legality. Again, do you honestly believe that women WON'T find out these recipes if they really desire an abortion or do you plan to try to return the US to the days of non communication to stop that from happening?

-M

Perhaps more couples will practice safe sex if abortion is illegal. Thus making the need for herb induced abortions unnecessary.

Saying that implies that people want the emotional and financial burden of an abortion. I think that's a large fallacy in the pro life argument of abortion as a birth control method, and if those individuals exist, I think they are few and far between.

Further, statistical past evidence doesn't support that hypothesis, as women were having abortions illegally long before roe v wade.

-M

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
They don't like it when you talk about sex. That's supposed to be for procreation only.

I've bit my lip long enough. Are these little constant jabs really necessary?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If you've ever actually observed the "pro-life" forces in action, they're pretty fucking sick.Because as we all know, the most extremist faction of a movement typifies every member. :jerkit:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Again, do you honestly believe that women WON'T find out these recipes if they really desire an abortion or do you plan to try to return the US to the days of non communication to stop that from happening?There will always be a way to have an abortion, just like there will always be a way for someone to kill you or I if they really want to. This does not mean we throw up our hands and say "well go ahead, here's a gun".

That being said, prevention is a secondary issue (as is where the unwanted babies would go). The primary issue is whether abortion is morally acceptable or not. If it's morally acceptable, discussing prevention is pointless.

I don't really know what fallacy you're trying to describe, or what statistics you're invoking.

[Warriorbird]

"Because as we all know, the most extremist faction of a movement typifies every member."

Operation Rescue is the largest pro-life organization in America, and they invited fucking Fred Phelps to help them in the area where I grew up. Giggle and use emoticons all you want, that's pretty fucking low for "mainstream."

"I've bit my lip long enough. Are these little constant jabs really necessary? "

I get them from everywhere.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Operation Rescue is the largest pro-life organization in AmericaMoveon.org raised more money than tons of Democratic organization, does that mean every Democrat's views are described by Moveon.org?

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Any first year botany student knows what induces the types of stomach cramping necessary to abort a fetus. There are many herbs that will do this, and the great majority of them are plentiful throughout the U.S..

I don't think it has much to do with political views, more with the necessary reliance on unsafe measures in the face of legality. Again, do you honestly believe that women WON'T find out these recipes if they really desire an abortion or do you plan to try to return the US to the days of non communication to stop that from happening?

-M

Perhaps more couples will practice safe sex if abortion is illegal. Thus making the need for herb induced abortions unnecessary.

Saying that implies that people want the emotional and financial burden of an abortion. I think that's a large fallacy in the pro life argument of abortion as a birth control method, and if those individuals exist, I think they are few and far between.

Further, statistical past evidence doesn't support that hypothesis, as women were having abortions illegally long before roe v wade.

-M

To my knowledge no statistics exist on abortions in America, prior to Roe vs Wade. I know that there were abortions but I bet in far fewer numbers.

If people know that they can't walk to the corner to get an abortion it follows that they will take more care in using birth control.

[Warriorbird]

If they're the largest organization (and they handled the Schiavo thing that you and Xtc loved) it's a pretty good indicator.

I'm sure you don't want me to go into explaining about Fred Phelps. He makes "compassionate conservatives." look pretty bad.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

That being said, prevention is a secondary issue (as is where the unwanted babies would go).

So you push to implement a plan without examining the consequences of such an action? That seems somewhat irresponsible.

Sorry, I can't view legal safe abortion as a loaded gun. Again, if you don't want one, don't have one. A loaded gun does not give a fully functioning person a choice. Abortion does.

Further or finally, I am invoking the situations and conditions that eventually passed Roe V. Wade.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
So you push to implement a plan without examining the consequences of such an action?If we aren't agreed on whether or not a plan should be implemented at all, it's pretty dumb to be talking about the details of the plan. As an aside, the "fully functioning" bit of your post sounds dangerously close to a lot of bad things.

I don't remember even commenting on the Schiavo issue. Of course, that would probably make it easier for you to invent my position, Warriorbird, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't view brainstorming as bad. As I stated before, if there was a solution that would eliminate the potential problems/abuses of making abortion illegal or seriously curtailing the number of legal abortions, I would absolutely be all ears.

Unfortunately, I've never heard one. All I've heard is a lot of utopian discussion on why abortion should never occur.

-M

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If we aren't agreed on whether or not a plan should be implemented at all, it's pretty dumb to be talking about the details of the plan.

Just so I'm absoultely clear here before I respond... What do you specifically think should happen? Not in the plan it out sense given that you've made it clear that you don't think a plan is necessary at this phase but in the broader stroke of things sense.

[Slider]

I'm of two minds about this one. First, I strongly believe that with the Roe v. Wade already being law, it would be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle so to speak. Abortian being legal is a fact. You cannot turn back the clock and wish it never happened. Furthermore, abortions have always taken place, as far back in history as you care to go, there have always been methods to abort/prevent pregnency in any society. (the above mentioned pennyroyal tea being but one) Abortions WILL take place, wether it be in a modern day clinic, or (to quote WB) in a back alley with a coat hanger.

Second, I do believe that it is the woman's choice, however I will strongly disagree with the opinion of a several of you who posted that the man in the equation (remember him? Takes two to do the deed, last time I checked at least) has no say in the matter. He is as responsible as the woman, and it is his child, just as it is hers. So yes, he does have a say in whether or not that child/fetus/whatever you want to call it, has a future.

I am also a strong supporter of teaching both abstinance, and sex education, as well as methods to prevent pregnancy. Yes, I know it is all but impossible to get a teen age boy to NOT have sex, I was one at one time, (eons ago, I know, but still) and I'm pretty sure that was all I was thinking about back then. However speaking as the Father of a lil baby girl, you can pretty much take it for granted I am going to be doing everything in my power to be DAMN sure that any potential target...err...boyfreind of hers is going to be seriously considering abstinance as a survival tool if nothing else. And I defy you to say any different where your baby girl is concerned WB. (If you have one, I honestly don't know) I also believe that you teach children to be responsible, and to realize that having sex may have consequences that they will have to live with. (or in the case of a boyfreind to afore-mentioned baby girl, might get you buried in my back yard.)

I will say that I think that relying on someone else to teach your children what is/is not responsible behavior with birth control and the possibility of STD's is a flat out fucking cop-out by the parent. It is your fucking child, it's not the responsability of the school, or the government, or anyone else for that matter to teach them what they need to know, it is the parents responsability. You want you child to know about STD's/birth control, how to use a condom, etc. Teach them yourself.

[Warriorbird]

No kids yet, but my little sister always looked up to me (she's eight years younger) and I told her she'd be wise to wait until at least college, because of all of the stupid situations I got into in high school. I think it made an impact.

With that said, I think that needs to come from parents and family and community/church, not from school. School needs to educate, and I don't feel most of those abstinence programs do that. Coming from as enlightened a family as I did, sex ed in school still taught me some things.

[ElanthianSiren]

Good post Slider. I actually agree on all points. My general thought on sex ed in schools is that it should be a suppliment to what your parents are already teaching you; I don't disagree with abstinence being taught. Rather, I disagree with it being the ONLY thing taught or being the main focus of instruction.

My parents taught me very early on that sex equals a baby, as no birth control method is 100%, so be prepared to take that risk or don't do it. Back then, we didn't have depo and a lot of the surgeries weren't as common, but I still think it's a good mindset to foster in a child.

One of my earliest memories is my mother reading a book with me called "The Wonderful Story of How You Were Born", which was really just a sex ed book for young children. Parents should never be underestimated in the equation IMO.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
Just so I'm absoultely clear here before I respond... What do you specifically think should happen? Not in the plan it out sense given that you've made it clear that you don't think a plan is necessary at this phase but in the broader stroke of things sense. What *should* happen is people should stop having careless sex. I'm against aborting for the sake of the baby in terms of medical conditions on account of the McCoy dilemma and how fast science is moving. Rape victims and aborting for the sake of the mother I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on.

[DeV]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Good post Slider.

-M Agreed. I had a reply all typed out too, but decided not to post. Your thoughts are well received Slider. Though, my only reply would have been to you saying the responsibility relies on the parents.

We can no longer give ALL parents who are obviously irresponsible, that responsibility alone. If we as society want to condemn the institution of abortion, then we as a society, need to come up with alternatives that will actually make more of a difference than just saying, it's wrong, and should be illegal because the mother is making a decision you feel you can't live with. Obviously, for [most], relief is the only thing on their minds after the deed is done.

[Jazuela]

There is a very novel approach to this whole issue in a book by Neale Donald Walsch called Conversations with God, Book III.

The discussion is more how to raise children, who should have children, more than it's about abortion. But it applies, so here's the general idea:

That we would have to change how our society thinks about all this, before we can even attempt to change how our society reacts to it. The "it takes a village to raise a child" is the premise..

And the approach is something like this. The youngest people of child-bearing age would -be- the people who would have the babies. Then, upon birth, they give those babies to the Elders, who have the wisdom and life experience to actually raise them. That leaves the younger folks free to continue living their lives and become those Elders in their own time.

So you'd have like - a 14 year old girl getting pregnant, with the entire village (neighborhood, whatever) rejoicing and celebrating rather than looking at it as if it was a disgusting thing. The 14-year-old gives birth, and it's the older folks who would do the actual raising of the baby. The 14-year-old then recovers from her pregnancy (because she is of an age to be the most physically fit to do so..) and continues living her life, content in the knowledge that her baby is loved and cared for and she can love her baby as much and as often as she likes...but that older more experienced adults are taking the responsibility of that child on the entire village's behalf.

I'm not sure whether or not something like this could ever happen in society as we know it. But the concept - sounds rather utopian and ideal. I know the "American Way" would never go for such a thing. But it's not all that far fetched and idea, if you consider that in some cultures, girls become brides at the ripe age of 7, and live in extended family units where the great-grandparents do the actual raising of the babies.

[Kyra]

Originally posted by Dave
Not one, Not two, but three friends
:hikes up his pant legs so they dont get bullshit on them:

Lord knows you spout enough of your own bullshit to NEED to pull up your pantlegs Dave.

It's not as uncommon as you probably think. Also since alot of the clinics went thru a phase of clamping instead of cauterizing there has been an issue of reversal.

The day you can tell me what I do & don't KNOW for a fact will be the day you have actually lived my life. Never mind the fact I'm alot older than you...given your views & attitude I probably have FAR more female friends than you & I've worked in a part of the medical field which gave me a hell of a lot more exposure to incidences where tubal ligations are messed up by the human body.

So go STFU & come back when you've managed to make it thru more than 2 decades of "life". .:rolleyes:

K.

[Jazuela]

I had a tubal ligation and didn't experience any problems at all. In fact, a "1-day surgery" took 15 minutes and I was walking down the corridor toward the registration desk to sign out an hour after I was brought into the recovery room. Can't say it was a piece of cake, I was sore for a couple of days. But it was a hell of a lot easier to deal with than the two abortions I experienced when I was much younger. Or the laser surgery to remove a full third of my cervix that was riddled with cancer cells.

I know one girl who's gotten pregnant twice in two years and aborted both times, using the day after pill I think - she hemmhorraged really badly and had to get a D&C after each one. She should've just gotten the D&C in the first place, but eh - you can't tell a rebellious teenager what to do. If it was illegal, she probably would've ended up dead from a botched back alley abortion instead of "merely" suffering through her own stupid choices. She's not a stupid girl. She just makes stupid decisions sometimes. Because of girls like her, I'm glad abortion is legal. She'd make a really lousy mother and I doubt her baby would be born healthy because her boyfriend's a crackhead. Like I said - stupid choices. Drives me nuts too because she is very intelligent. She just lacks common sense to the extreme.

Abortion shouldn't ever be something a woman would -want- to do, as a replacement for birth control or abstinence. I don't know of anyone who considers this option lightly, when faced with the situation. No matter what our opinions are on the subject of when life begins, I'm confident that the vast majority of women who have had abortions never just shrugged and said "oh big deal, I'll just get an abortion and I can have sex again in a couple of weeks."

Those women who -do- feel that way have more issues than the matter of their fertility, and perhaps that is what needs to be addressed, instead of the actual choice itself to abort.

[Forged]

Originally posted by Jazuela
There is a very novel approach to this whole issue in a book by Neale Donald Walsch called Conversations with God, Book III.

The discussion is more how to raise children, who should have children, more than it's about abortion. But it applies, so here's the general idea:

That we would have to change how our society thinks about all this, before we can even attempt to change how our society reacts to it. The "it takes a village to raise a child" is the premise..

And the approach is something like this. The youngest people of child-bearing age would -be- the people who would have the babies. Then, upon birth, they give those babies to the Elders, who have the wisdom and life experience to actually raise them. That leaves the younger folks free to continue living their lives and become those Elders in their own time.

So you'd have like - a 14 year old girl getting pregnant, with the entire village (neighborhood, whatever) rejoicing and celebrating rather than looking at it as if it was a disgusting thing. The 14-year-old gives birth, and it's the older folks who would do the actual raising of the baby. The 14-year-old then recovers from her pregnancy (because she is of an age to be the most physically fit to do so..) and continues living her life, content in the knowledge that her baby is loved and cared for and she can love her baby as much and as often as she likes...but that older more experienced adults are taking the responsibility of that child on the entire village's behalf.

I'm not sure whether or not something like this could ever happen in society as we know it. But the concept - sounds rather utopian and ideal. I know the "American Way" would never go for such a thing. But it's not all that far fetched and idea, if you consider that in some cultures, girls become brides at the ripe age of 7, and live in extended family units where the great-grandparents do the actual raising of the babies.

This is a wonderful ideal, but as you said, people in this country are too damn slef-centered to give one inch for anyone else, much less a "stupid teenager".

It's a sad state of affairs.