[quote]rainjack wrote:
Not another one of these stupid threads.
Dude - do a fucking search. Go post in those threads.
[/quote]
Oh, it’s way beyond missing threads on T-Nation. Where has this guy been for the last 30 years? Dude, opponents believe it is murder and should thus be illegal for everyone.
Call me tasteless…
Expect abortion rates to rise as the economy declines further into a depression.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’m not sure I’m qualified to have position on abortion, for the simple reason that I don’t happen to have a uterus. If I did, I might feel more strongly about the issue.
That’s a pretty bad position to hold Varq. The Warren court that decided the case was all male. If you’re correct, they’d have to overturn Roe v. Wade on the grounds that none of the justices had uteruses (uteri? uteren? ).
That can’t be a prerequisite for having a position on abortion.
Well, I also believe that someone who has never owned a gun, never used a gun, and doesn’t understand guns is unqualified to pass firearms legislation, or indeed to squawk about restricting or banning guns. Same principle.[/quote]
But you’ve lived life as a human? If so (you never know), you’re more than qualified to take a position in defense of innocent human life.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Call me tasteless…[/quote]
Tastelessly hilarious.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’m not sure I’m qualified to have position on abortion, for the simple reason that I don’t happen to have a uterus. If I did, I might feel more strongly about the issue.
That’s a pretty bad position to hold Varq. The Warren court that decided the case was all male. If you’re correct, they’d have to overturn Roe v. Wade on the grounds that none of the justices had uteruses (uteri? uteren? ).
That can’t be a prerequisite for having a position on abortion.
Well, I also believe that someone who has never owned a gun, never used a gun, and doesn’t understand guns is unqualified to pass firearms legislation, or indeed to squawk about restricting or banning guns. Same principle.
But you’ve lived life as a human? If so (you never know), you’re more than qualified to take a position in defense of innocent human life.[/quote]
I would first have to be convinced that those human lives ought to be saved, for any other reason beside that they are “innocent.”
I’m sorry, Sloth, I know this is an emotional issue for a lot of people, but I simply can’t get myself agitated about it.
There are plenty of humans already, and if anything, we need fewer, not more. We can’t just throw the extras off cliffs or leave them on windswept crags like we used to, and we can’t drown them in buckets like they allegedly still do in China.
And no matter how you look at it, there are simply not enough affluent couples willing to adopt all of the world’s unwanted babies.
So we kill them in a relatively simple and safe (for the mother, anyway, if not for the baby) surgical procedure while they’re still tiny. I may not like this whole business of killing babies, but I dislike poverty, famine, environmental devastation, wars of aggression, and the other symptoms of overpopulation as well.
I would certainly never try to convince a woman to get an abortion, but unless I am willing to personally adopt her unwanted child, pay for her medical expenses, and compensate her for all other expenses involved in carrying the child to term, I would not presume to tell her she has no right to have one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?
[/quote]
Lol
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?[/quote]
I thought the consensus of the medical community was nothing after the second trimester ends?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?
Lol
Yeah, you and I have had this discussion before and I know your answer. Now I’m interested in me buddy Varq’s.[/quote]
After I hit submit, I was hoping you would understand why I typed that. I didn’t want you to think I was mocking your post.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?
Lol
Yeah, you and I have had this discussion before and I know your answer. Now I’m interested in me buddy Varq’s.
After I hit submit, I was hoping you would understand why I typed that. I didn’t want you to think I was mocking your post.
Thing is I understand where you’re coming from but your position is so indefensible that I feel sorry for you when it comes to a debate on the issue; you’re so vulnerable or rather your position is so vulnerable.[/quote]
You only feel that way because you choose to place value on a fetus. In your eyes fetus=baby. It’s not so in my eyes.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I’m not sure I’m qualified to have position on abortion, for the simple reason that I don’t happen to have a uterus. If I did, I might feel more strongly about the issue.
That’s a pretty bad position to hold Varq. The Warren court that decided the case was all male. If you’re correct, they’d have to overturn Roe v. Wade on the grounds that none of the justices had uteruses (uteri? uteren? ).
That can’t be a prerequisite for having a position on abortion.
Well, I also believe that someone who has never owned a gun, never used a gun, and doesn’t understand guns is unqualified to pass firearms legislation, or indeed to squawk about restricting or banning guns. Same principle.[/quote]
Well while I could see that in regards to gun rights, and there are certainly many times where you should have personal experience in order to be qualified to legislate or opine on a subject, I don’t believe this is one of those times.
As I said, if you reject the notion that a male cannot be qualified to hold a position on abortion, then you must reject the watershed Roe v. Wade on those same grounds, since it was an all male court that ruled on it. Surely that can’t be rational.
This is an ethical and moral question, not experiential question, and I believe all rational humans have an ability to hold a qualified position on ethical, moral, and philosophical subjects. Irrespective of one’s “side” in a debate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, if indeed there is a consensus in the medical community which I doubt there is, who decided that the medical community has been deified and/or elected in order to dispense their omniscience in regards to the legal status of human beings?[/quote]
Oh, I see. This is a philosophical and ethics related debate.
Nuts.
Oh crap! Sorry for all the reposts. My computer wouldn’t connect but somehow still managed to send the messages all the way through.
Well, I would say the issue has serious ethical and philosophical implications. Science is certainly a large part of the debate as well. However, I believe the the question of when a person is defined is very difficult for science to answer by itself. This is distinct from the question of what a human (a homo sapiens) is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?
[/quote]
Isn’t that the great question, and the reason this debate still comes up?
The fact that people have widely varying answers, and they are, predominantly, based on emotion rather than facts, is what makes it impossible to satsify everyone.
In my view, and this is only my view, the only true fact is that whether abortion is legal or not, women will continue to have them. That puts the safety and health of every woman who chose to do this at risk. To me, that alone is reason enough to have them legal.
The only things you can have is abortion either completely legal, or completely illegal. Any other judgement is going to be based on very subjective analysis.
I have stated before that I opposed late term and partial birth abortions. But if we say that after the second trimester, folks like you will (reasonably) ask, “Who decided this day?”
Others will say, “What if it’s a week before the third trimester? Can you still get an abortion?”
A pandora’s box opens.
It is a precarious situation, but to me, the law must stand as it is. I don’t believe it’s ever going to change, either.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And according to your line of thinking at what point in this child’s life does it pass from “expendable depending on the circumstances albeit distressing” to “No, that’s out and out murder and it’s wrong”?
Eight months before birth? Three months? Three days?
Three days after birth? Three months? Eight months? Five years?
[/quote]
Let us assume for the moment that a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a newborn baby, and a five-year old child have exactly the same value.
In this case, it should be as much of a crime to abort the fetus via a suction tube, or to induce the miscarriage of the embryo via the morning-after pill, as it would be to toss a newborn into dumpster or bash in the head of the five-year-old with a beer bottle. The woman who popped a Plan B should therefore get twenty to life in prison, right next to the woman who drowned her toddler in the bathtub.
But to be fair, every miscarriage (which the majority of pregnancies end up being) should also be treated as a homicide, until the investigators are convinced that there was no foul play involved in the fertilized egg ending up as a blood clot on the maxi-pad.
I’m being sarcastic here, but only a little. And really, I suppose my position is a little selfish.
I love children, just as I love dogs. I think that the killing of either is sad. However, whereas I am only a little saddened by the thought that thousands of unwanted dogs are euthanized every day in animal shelters around the country, I would be devastated if my own dog were to die. Similarly, whereas I would be heartbroken and outraged if one of my own children were to be murdered, I cannot summon up similar pangs of sorrow or rage over the fates of the unwanted unborn.
If you’ve got a plan for what to do with an extra million babies a year in the US, I’d love to hear it. In the meantime, I have other things to be outraged about.