[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
What happened to pre-vention? What happened to pills, one of the cornerstones of womens liberation. You have public education about gays and what not, but then nothing about contraception? Maybe abortion for non-medical reasons should be a bit more expensive and preventive methods cheaper. [/quote]
Birth control pills are abortifacient. Go to your local pharmacy, ask them if you can read the paper contents they have in the pill boxes, read the fourth function of the pill. Textbook definition of abortifacient.
Plus, the reason is because with the contraception mind-set, abortion is a safety net. So, if the pills don’t work, they just have it aborted. Second, if people have to pay a lot of money to the clinics the clinics can’t do it in such high volume (they get subsidized by the government).[/quote]
Precisely, why prolong the inevitable, women should use the pills or abstain from sex if they don’t wan’t to get pregnant, right, pills it is then. If religion forbids them there are still many other options.[/quote]
I think you read passed my statement, ‘pills are abortifacient’ meaning pills cause abortions.[/quote]
That’s what I meant too, I hope. Ideally every abortion should be done immediately after conception. Even more ideally there would be no need for abortions. Tha’s what I think, anyway. 41% is much, sounds like some eastern block country.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
You clearly do not understand or haven’t bothered to read Stephen Levitt’s work.
What you have written is nothing but fallacious.
[/quote]
I have read his work and pat’s argument is pithy but accurate.
Kill all people on welfare, that will drop crime. If you don’t want to do that just have forced sterilization of the poor, insane and criminal. That will cut crime too.
Of course these ideas are crimes too but less car stereos will be stolen.
Abortion is murder. Just because murdering poor kids before they are born drops the future crime rate does not make it right.
Count each abortion as murder and then have Levitt re-run the numbers.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
You clearly do not understand or haven’t bothered to read Stephen Levitt’s work.
What you have written is nothing but fallacious.
[/quote]
I have read his work and pat’s argument is pithy but accurate.
Kill all people on welfare, that will drop crime. If you don’t want to do that just have forced sterilization of the poor, insane and criminal. That will cut crime too.
Of course these ideas are crimes too but less car stereos will be stolen.
Abortion is murder. Just because murdering poor kids before they are born drops the future crime rate does not make it right.
Count each abortion as murder and then have Levitt re-run the numbers.[/quote]
I don’t consider abortion in the early stages of pregnancy murder.
pat’s argument is far from accurate. No one is recommending we endorse abortion to lower the crime rate. I simply stated one positive side effect of having legalized abortion is a lowering of the crime rate.
[quote]orion wrote:
Unless you believe that human beings have a soul that makes them extra special there really is no reason to equate a fertilized egg with a human being.
So yes, this is a religious issue.
Most Jews for example have a much more relaxed approach when it comes to abortion and embryonic stem cell research but they also have clear instructions in their religious texts that an embryo is not a full person.
[/quote]
It’s a religious issue in as much as the 5th commandment states, ‘Thou shall not kill’. But if you believe killing is wrong, the abortion must also be wrong as you are willfully killing a human being.
“…they also have clear instructions in their religious texts that an embryo is not a full person.” Oh? Please provide a link or some sort of evidence to this being true. Not saying it’s not, just saying I have never heard of such a thing. So I’d like some references.
See below:
“As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth.”
The fact remains that for a Jew an embryo is not a human being, though not entirely without value and that they research the shit out of embryonic stem cells in Israel.
That some Rabbis are coming out against abortion now is more of a backlash than anything else and they stand on rather shaky grounds but even they would agree that if the mothers life is in danger an abortion is in order.
That completely ignores the existence of emerging patterns like consciousness.
[/quote]
Consciousness is also the result of a lump of cells. That is all human beings are. An individual organism, a lump of cells, with human DNA. The Orion fetus is the SAME INDIVIDUAL organism as the libertarian Orion adult poking away at his keyboard today. There is no switch-a-roo at some point in the pregnancy, swapping out some placeholder organism for the Orion organism. Pro-aborts and their silly superstitions…[/quote]
Maybe so, but just because a lump of cells might develop consciousness it does not change that it has not done so yet.[/quote]
So if a rock has consciousness, is it human?
Consciousness is one element of humanness, it’s not all of it. If someone goes in to a coma, or passes out drunk, they are not temporarily not human.[/quote]
If a rock develops a consciousness you have no right to shatter it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
Reductio ad absurdum - look it up
[/quote]
Have you looked it up?
[/quote]
Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.
Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.
Hint: They reason why I did not care then is the reason why I do not care now.[/quote]
Wait, what? You’re a fetus, now? I mean, I’ve long thought your libertarianism infantile. But, fetustile? Is that even a word?
[/quote]
Gargl.
I did not care then because I was not able to, which is why I do not care now, because embryos are not really able to do or care about anything. [/quote]
You were able to, given the opportunity. In fact, here you are today. So, as another human individual, who made it out of the “danger zone,” afforded the time need to make the case for my own life, I speak on their behalf.
On the topic of Roe v. Wade, my point is still clear. There is no ‘too late’ for abortion in the United States, which allows abortion in all nine months.
[/quote]
Taken from Wikipedia where citations exist on the text:
"The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.[/quote]
Yes, congratulations. I read the same thing. I actually took the time to read the controversial document myself. Still allows abortion in all nine months. I didn’t say it didn’t allow for states to put further restrictions. I just said that Roe v. Wade ALLOWS abortion in all 9 months.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
Reductio ad absurdum - look it up
[/quote]
Have you looked it up?
[/quote]
Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.
Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.[/quote]
Perhaps you should look it up. It is a legitimate technique documented as far back the Greek philosophers.
… there really is no reason to equate a fertilized egg with a human being.
[/quote]
Why not? It’s the same individual organism. That’s a scientific fact.
[/quote]
It is also a fact that you cannot replicate the organism ever again if destroyed. The fact is that there is no break in the life cycle of a human between conception and death. There are many stages of development, but one is not more or less human depending on which stage in the life cycle you are. All stages are necessary for human development.
The use the clump of cells theory is to say that clump of cells is easily replicatable and that one graduates to unique humanness at a particular stage. This is factually bunk.
[/quote]
It’s a really bizarre argument we get from the the pro-abort side, is it not? There is this implication that sloth fetus /was/is not the same individual organism as sloth PWI dweller. That WAS me! It’s still me! The same goes for every human being, ever.
It’s a hard fact to swallow, I suppose. To realize just what that 41% really represents. For someone to show up, without a word of alarm in the face of such a staggering figure (and what it represents), in order to express their ‘non concern’ is chilling. Something has unraveled here folks. Somewhere in our progress we’ve regressed into something brutish and nasty. Selfish, unanchored, and undisciplined. 41%?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
Reductio ad absurdum - look it up
[/quote]
Have you looked it up?
[/quote]
Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.
Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.[/quote]
Perhaps you should look it up. It is a legitimate technique documented as far back the Greek philosophers.
pat = Plato[/quote]
So what?
it can be argued as a valid or invalid technique. In this case all pat has is a strawman.
… there really is no reason to equate a fertilized egg with a human being.
[/quote]
Why not? It’s the same individual organism. That’s a scientific fact.
[/quote]
It is also a fact that you cannot replicate the organism ever again if destroyed. The fact is that there is no break in the life cycle of a human between conception and death. There are many stages of development, but one is not more or less human depending on which stage in the life cycle you are. All stages are necessary for human development.
The use the clump of cells theory is to say that clump of cells is easily replicatable and that one graduates to unique humanness at a particular stage. This is factually bunk.
[/quote]
It’s a really bizarre argument we get from the the pro-abort side, is it not? There is this implication that sloth fetus /was/is not the same individual organism as sloth PWI dweller. That WAS me! It’s still me! The same goes for every human being, ever.
It’s a hard fact to swallow, I suppose. To realize just what that 41% really represents. For someone to show up, without a word of alarm in the face of such a staggering figure (and what it represents), in order to express their ‘non concern’ is chilling. Something has unraveled here folks. Somewhere in our progress we’ve regressed into something brutish and nasty. Selfish, unanchored, and undisciplined. 41%?[/quote]
You are both arguing as if a potential equaled the fulfillment of that potential.
… there really is no reason to equate a fertilized egg with a human being.
[/quote]
Why not? It’s the same individual organism. That’s a scientific fact.
[/quote]
It is also a fact that you cannot replicate the organism ever again if destroyed. The fact is that there is no break in the life cycle of a human between conception and death. There are many stages of development, but one is not more or less human depending on which stage in the life cycle you are. All stages are necessary for human development.
The use the clump of cells theory is to say that clump of cells is easily replicatable and that one graduates to unique humanness at a particular stage. This is factually bunk.
[/quote]
It’s a really bizarre argument we get from the the pro-abort side, is it not? There is this implication that sloth fetus /was/is not the same individual organism as sloth PWI dweller. That WAS me! It’s still me! The same goes for every human being, ever.
It’s a hard fact to swallow, I suppose. To realize just what that 41% really represents. For someone to show up, without a word of alarm in the face of such a staggering figure (and what it represents), in order to express their ‘non concern’ is chilling. Something has unraveled here folks. Somewhere in our progress we’ve regressed into something brutish and nasty. Selfish, unanchored, and undisciplined. 41%?[/quote]
You are both arguing as if a potential equaled the fulfillment of that potential.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I know what you guys are going to say but I’ll ask anyway.
What are your thoughts on Economist Stephen Levitt linking the legalization of abortion to the decrease in crime rates over the years?
^ It’s long but skip to the conclusion at the end.[/quote]
Why stop there? The more people you kill the fewer crimes will be committed. So like, why don’t we nuke most of the world? That should drop the crime rates…
May be the dumbest pro-abortion argument I have ever heard.[/quote]
Reductio ad absurdum - look it up
[/quote]
Have you looked it up?
[/quote]
Didn’t have to. - It’ when someone leads your argument to an absurd conclusion.
Read pat’s post about nuking the world to lower the crime rate.[/quote]
Perhaps you should look it up. It is a legitimate technique documented as far back the Greek philosophers.
pat = Plato[/quote]
So what?
it can be argued as a valid or invalid technique. In this case all pat has is a strawman.
[/quote]
It is a completely valid technique, unlike the popular strawman technique.
He did not make false claims like Levitt thinks we should kill everyone to reduce crime. He merely demonstrated that the reduction in crime argument is a poor one without having to write an essay.
i don’t care if a fetus is already “human” or not, or if it’s conscious or not.
it’s a unique living being.
even if it is nothing more than a mere lump of cells, it’s an extremely complex and absolutely unique lump of cells. Something that took billions of years and billions of contingent events to produce.
the complete and non reversible loss of something unique is never a good thing.
by definition.
when this complete and non reversible loss can be avoided and is not, it’s evil.
by definition.
… there really is no reason to equate a fertilized egg with a human being.
[/quote]
Why not? It’s the same individual organism. That’s a scientific fact.
[/quote]
It is also a fact that you cannot replicate the organism ever again if destroyed. The fact is that there is no break in the life cycle of a human between conception and death. There are many stages of development, but one is not more or less human depending on which stage in the life cycle you are. All stages are necessary for human development.
The use the clump of cells theory is to say that clump of cells is easily replicatable and that one graduates to unique humanness at a particular stage. This is factually bunk.
[/quote]
It’s a really bizarre argument we get from the the pro-abort side, is it not? There is this implication that sloth fetus /was/is not the same individual organism as sloth PWI dweller. That WAS me! It’s still me! The same goes for every human being, ever.
It’s a hard fact to swallow, I suppose. To realize just what that 41% really represents. For someone to show up, without a word of alarm in the face of such a staggering figure (and what it represents), in order to express their ‘non concern’ is chilling. Something has unraveled here folks. Somewhere in our progress we’ve regressed into something brutish and nasty. Selfish, unanchored, and undisciplined. 41%?[/quote]
You are both arguing as if a potential equaled the fulfillment of that potential.
Whatever an embryo might become, it is not now.
[/quote]
Same could be said of the once baby Orion.[/quote]
Seriously though, Orion. The number doesn’t have a chilling effect on you? No, not frustration over “hey, why aren’t they using condoms! It’s more cost effective to us a rubber than pay for an abortion! Does not compute! Does not compute!” I mean a sickening feeling. Informing you that a human tragedy has silently unfolded under our noses? Again, 41%. Still nothing?