More Abortion Talk

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
America, land of the free… if you’re a white conservative male between 25 and 55 and adhere to the christian faith. Otherwise, go to hell!
[/quote]

You shouldn’t even use the word “Freedom” while being a pro-abortionist. [/quote]

Freedom, freedom, freedom? You suck at trolling slothy, but i can imagine that, in your warped little world, denying women the choice whether to abort a pregnancy or not constitutes freedom.

Will you be keeping this up, or should i ignore you too?[/quote]

Sloth’s world is very simplistic. It starts with the proposition that human life begins at the very moment of conception. As I already mentioned, I have a problem with this based on a basic understanding of neurology. Second, he assumes that all abortions are the result of unprotected, casual sex. As I also mentioned, I have some problems with this as well. I recognize that the moment of conception creates a potential for human life, and this potential deserves some protections. What is missing in the discussion is life/health of the mother, rape, and incest. As a Catholic, Sloth believes that abortion is wrong in these cases as well. As someone who believes in limited government, I have a real problem with the state telling a rape victim, “Sorry, we know it’s not your fault, but you must carry and give birth to the rapist’s child.” It’s like if someone broke into your house and the government says, “Sorry, but this poor guy obviously needs a home. You must now allow him to live in your home rent-free and provide him with food and clothing. Try to kick him out and you’ll end up in jail. That’s the law because we strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a home.”

42

Mak, I have a few simple questions.

  1. How will you ensure everyone will take this form of control you wish?

2)Will the government track the individuals who do NOT get treated?

3)How about the people to poor for the injection?

4)How about the lazy guys who don’t want to give up their spot on the couch? Let alone the drug dealers, rapists and pedophiles?

43

Rape victims should have any and every option given to them. Including education about the future and how other people were effected after a rape and the killing of a child growing inside them.

Can I ask you to take an embryology class so you can understand the process that much better. Rather than take a stand BEFORE you know the subject. At least that is the advice coming from this guy

<-------------

Then notice how every credible embryology text refers to the fetus.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
And this is the dispute. I don’t know when life begins but I highly doubt that it begins at the very moment of conception. Why? Because at that very moment there is no higher brain function - the brain has not even developed yet. What you have at this stage is a potential for human life. So the question becomes who should be given the right to decide when human life begins? Politicians? A majority of the people? Or should it be the individual? My vote is for the individual.

And for the record, I am not entirely opposed to some regulation on aborting healthy fetuses that do not threaten the mother’s life or health. However, in situations where the mother’s life and health are at risk, rape, and incest, the choice to abort should be left entirely to the individual.[/quote]

44

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And btw, if I accepted your premise that abortion was indeed merely a law regulating a distasteful act, then I would fully agree with you. But I don’t. Abortion takes a human life. That is not acceptable. And that is where the argument needs to start.
[/quote]

And this is the dispute. I don’t know when life begins but I highly doubt that it begins at the very moment of conception. Why? Because at that very moment there is no higher brain function - the brain has not even developed yet. What you have at this stage is a potential for human life. So the question becomes who should be given the right to decide when human life begins? Politicians? A majority of the people? Or should it be the individual? My vote is for the individual.

And for the record, I am not entirely opposed to some regulation on aborting healthy fetuses that do not threaten the mother’s life or health. However, in situations where the mother’s life and health are at risk, rape, and incest, the choice to abort should be left entirely to the individual.[/quote]

I personally believe that the sperm and the egg are alive , I think it would be considered murder at the time the Zygote’s life becomes viable . Until that time the life is truly at the Mother’s discretion

45

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A botched abortion can lead to infertility.
[/quote]

So can a botched paps mear, reaction to birth control pills, high blood pressure, etc. Besides, if your willing to kill off your kid, infertility may not be a bad thing since you don’t want an inconvenient kid…It’s an indication you’re to selfish to have kids…[/quote]

Right, right. That must be it.

Why ask questions if all you want is a confirmation of your preconceptions?

A black and white, good vs evil, world does not exist.

Just count yourself lucky you’ll never have to make such a decision pat.

We’re men, we don’t know what it’s like. [/quote]

Then why are you arguing if ‘we’re men’? Isn’t that hypocritical? And last time I checked, men are the protectors of society, supposed to protect the innocent and defenseless.

46

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A potential of life.[/quote]

How is it a potential life, and not a life?

47

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And btw, if I accepted your premise that abortion was indeed merely a law regulating a distasteful act, then I would fully agree with you. But I don’t. Abortion takes a human life. That is not acceptable. And that is where the argument needs to start.
[/quote]

And this is the dispute. I don’t know when life begins but I highly doubt that it begins at the very moment of conception. Why? Because at that very moment there is no higher brain function - the brain has not even developed yet. What you have at this stage is a potential for human life. So the question becomes who should be given the right to decide when human life begins? Politicians? A majority of the people? Or should it be the individual? My vote is for the individual.

And for the record, I am not entirely opposed to some regulation on aborting healthy fetuses that do not threaten the mother’s life or health. However, in situations where the mother’s life and health are at risk, rape, and incest, the choice to abort should be left entirely to the individual.[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn has a brain that has less development. And it is not thinking or self-aware until much later. But how does level of development deteremine our value? Aren’t there many humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain or have worse thinking skills than others or have more self-awareness than others? If those things give us value, don’t those of us with more thinking skills have more value than those of us with less?

48

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
America, land of the free… if you’re a white conservative male between 25 and 55 and adhere to the christian faith. Otherwise, go to hell!
[/quote]

You shouldn’t even use the word “Freedom” while being a pro-abortionist. [/quote]

Freedom, freedom, freedom? You suck at trolling slothy, but i can imagine that, in your warped little world, denying women the choice whether to abort a pregnancy or not constitutes freedom.

Will you be keeping this up, or should i ignore you too?[/quote]

Sloth’s world is very simplistic. It starts with the proposition that human life begins at the very moment of conception. As I already mentioned, I have a problem with this based on a basic understanding of neurology. Second, he assumes that all abortions are the result of unprotected, casual sex. As I also mentioned, I have some problems with this as well. I recognize that the moment of conception creates a potential for human life, and this potential deserves some protections. What is missing in the discussion is life/health of the mother, rape, and incest. As a Catholic, Sloth believes that abortion is wrong in these cases as well. As someone who believes in limited government, I have a real problem with the state telling a rape victim, “Sorry, we know it’s not your fault, but you must carry and give birth to the rapist’s child.” [/quote]

Since you bring up rape. Let’s say that a woman is raped, and for whatever reason she doesn’t have an abortion and the child is born. She has a DNA test and it is confirmed that it is the rapist child, can she kill it?

How about, if a man rapes a woman – but she doesn’t become pregnant – can we kill the rapist’s child that lives with him and his wife?

[quote]It’s like if someone broke into your house and the government says, “Sorry, but this poor guy obviously needs a home. You must now allow him to live in your home rent-free and provide him with food and clothing. Try to kick him out and you’ll end up in jail. That’s the law because we strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a home.”
[/quote]

I don’t quite see it this way, I may be wrong. Let’s look at this though. Is a child its parent? No, so how is a child responsible for the parent? It can’t be when it isn’t even born yet. So, how does the metaphor of a burglar (who is not innocent and in this case the rapist) equal to a innocent child in its mother’s womb (after all as we have been told the child is the mother’s)? I do not think they are. The child did rape its mother, the man did. The man should be punished and not his children.

49

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A botched abortion can lead to infertility.
[/quote]

So can a botched paps mear, reaction to birth control pills, high blood pressure, etc. Besides, if your willing to kill off your kid, infertility may not be a bad thing since you don’t want an inconvenient kid…It’s an indication you’re to selfish to have kids…[/quote]

Right, right. That must be it.

Why ask questions if all you want is a confirmation of your preconceptions?

A black and white, good vs evil, world does not exist.

Just count yourself lucky you’ll never have to make such a decision pat.

We’re men, we don’t know what it’s like. [/quote]

Then why are you arguing if ‘we’re men’? Isn’t that hypocritical? And last time I checked, men are the protectors of society, supposed to protect the innocent and defenseless.[/quote]

It’s not hypocritical. Leaving the decision up to the woman is not hypocritical. To take it away from her is.

And, ‘protectors of society’? Please, next thing you start to claim your poo smells like roses.

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re right that the unborn has a brain that has less development. And it is not thinking or self-aware until much later. But how does level of development deteremine our value? Aren’t there many humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain or have worse thinking skills than others or have more self-awareness than others? If those things give us value, don’t those of us with more thinking skills have more value than those of us with less?[/quote]

Well, let’s look at this objectively. Look at how society treats different individuals. Can a severely retarded person ever earn a salary comparable to that of a more intelligent person who becomes a doctor, lawyer, or engineer? And no, before you even get there, I am NOT arguing that developmentally disabled people should be killed. I am simply pointing out the reality here: based on earning potential, our society does, in fact, place a higher value on those who have more intelligence and better thinking skills. Like it or not, that is a cold hard fact.

51

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A potential of life.[/quote]

How is it a potential life, and not a life?[/quote]

What pat believes is that the zygote is a fullfledged human being. It isn’t. A zygote does not possess the same attributes a living, breathing human being has, …yet.

52

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
America, land of the free… if you’re a white conservative male between 25 and 55 and adhere to the christian faith. Otherwise, go to hell!
[/quote]

You shouldn’t even use the word “Freedom” while being a pro-abortionist. [/quote]

Freedom, freedom, freedom? You suck at trolling slothy, but i can imagine that, in your warped little world, denying women the choice whether to abort a pregnancy or not constitutes freedom.

Will you be keeping this up, or should i ignore you too?[/quote]

Sloth’s world is very simplistic. It starts with the proposition that human life begins at the very moment of conception. As I already mentioned, I have a problem with this based on a basic understanding of neurology. Second, he assumes that all abortions are the result of unprotected, casual sex. As I also mentioned, I have some problems with this as well. I recognize that the moment of conception creates a potential for human life, and this potential deserves some protections. What is missing in the discussion is life/health of the mother, rape, and incest. As a Catholic, Sloth believes that abortion is wrong in these cases as well. As someone who believes in limited government, I have a real problem with the state telling a rape victim, “Sorry, we know it’s not your fault, but you must carry and give birth to the rapist’s child.” It’s like if someone broke into your house and the government says, “Sorry, but this poor guy obviously needs a home. You must now allow him to live in your home rent-free and provide him with food and clothing. Try to kick him out and you’ll end up in jail. That’s the law because we strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a home.”
[/quote]

It’s also a lie he maintains to disguise the fact he prefers to feel dominant over females.

Usually it’s inversely related to penis size.

53

[quote]pat wrote:
Why do would you care if abortion rates are low if you agree with abortion? Wouldn’t it be better if they are high?[/quote]

You are a complete idiot.

54

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think the core point of the other thread was not really whether or not we can or should criminalize abortion, but was an attempt to logically justify our positions first, one way or the other.

I actually think you have a point, though I disagree with much of it. Your argument is certainly much better than a lot of what we’ve been dealing with on the other thread, and you appear to realize it. The problem is that your solution here still doesn’t address the core issue:

If abortion is the intentional snuffing out of an individual human life, then any instance of abortion is, indeed, murder. And if this is true, then talk of “scaling back” the murder (my terminology) starts to look absurd. That’s why we keep finding ourselves back at square one so often. [/quote]

But you see that gives us what I see the main problem. Is it even close to realistic to expect an overnight change as drastic as you want? You can intellectualize this debate as much as you want, but both sides are wasting time. Nothing is happening.

What is better, to be the righteous protester where everything stays the same, or the herald of gradual change?

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re asking me? Feel free to ignore me for all I care. The truth hurts. You support the snuffing out of lives as a solution to poverty, casual sex, and crime. Where is the freedom you ground up with all that flesh in your quest for casual sex? Where is the freedom of those human lives, whose destruction you supported? Where? Rotting in some biological disposal? Burnt up in some crematory? Pro-abortions are anti-freedom. They will trade the inalienable rights (such as life) of human beings just to secure casual non-committal sex as a norm. “It’s invasive.” Cry me a friggen river. We stand for freedom, you don’t.

Your side will eventually find it’s rightfull place in history, right alongside slavers.[/quote]

This is the kind of drivel I mean. It does nothing except entrench sides and stifle any form of progress. There is no solution, just heel digging.

56

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Why do would you care if abortion rates are low if you agree with abortion? Wouldn’t it be better if they are high?[/quote]

Believing a woman should have the option of abortion does not mean believing the woman should take it. Pro choice is not the same as pro abortion.[/quote]

If you believe abortion is right, why should it be as high an option as any other? Why shouldn’t that just be another choice, not one to be avoided? Seriously, if it’s right, it’s right, why should it ever be avoided?[/quote]

You’re confusing the right with the thing. The belief that the right to have an abortion is right is not the same as believing abortion itself is right or good.

Many see abortion as an unfortunate last resort.

Also, if you oppose abortion, shouldnt you support all the things that reduce the incidence of the circumstances where people choose to have abortions?[/quote]

Thank you.

57

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And btw, if I accepted your premise that abortion was indeed merely a law regulating a distasteful act, then I would fully agree with you. But I don’t. Abortion takes a human life. That is not acceptable. And that is where the argument needs to start.
[/quote]

And this is the dispute. I don’t know when life begins but I highly doubt that it begins at the very moment of conception. Why? Because at that very moment there is no higher brain function - the brain has not even developed yet. What you have at this stage is a potential for human life. So the question becomes who should be given the right to decide when human life begins? Politicians? A majority of the people? Or should it be the individual? My vote is for the individual.

And for the record, I am not entirely opposed to some regulation on aborting healthy fetuses that do not threaten the mother’s life or health. However, in situations where the mother’s life and health are at risk, rape, and incest, the choice to abort should be left entirely to the individual.[/quote]

I would take it a step further if it wasn’t so grey in the waters I’d like to tread.

I would not offer abortion to anyone not using a form of contraception that had a lower failure rate than at least a condom.

58

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Mak, I have a few simple questions.

  1. How will you ensure everyone will take this form of control you wish?

2)Will the government track the individuals who do NOT get treated?

3)How about the people to poor for the injection?

4)How about the lazy guys who don’t want to give up their spot on the couch? Let alone the drug dealers, rapists and pedophiles?[/quote]

  1. I can’t. No one can. The closest I can get is offering ideas on how to nudge people in that direction. For example, no option for abortions for people not using contraception that doesn’t have an acceptably low failure rate (although judging this is going to be tricky I can tell already), except in cases like already discussed in other threads - rape, incest etc.

  2. Simple. Government database on contraception. I know a lot of you will oppose Big Brother, but let’s face it, it’s about whether you use contraception or not. Big whoop. People should have nothing to hide here. Either you’re on the pill etc. or you’re not. It’s also not hard to determine if someone is using most forms of contraception these days. Anything on the list above the condom can be verified by any doctor.

  3. Subsidize. Sorry if you feel like I’m redistributing wealth here, but people on welfare raising children will cost you a LOT more money. I know up until the age of 24(?) in NZ you can get a Doctors prescription for condoms, running you a grand total of three dollars to get 12x packs of twelve condoms.

  4. I don’t follow here. Could you rephrase or clarify this statement?

59

How will YOU ensure they did have protection, like a comdom?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And btw, if I accepted your premise that abortion was indeed merely a law regulating a distasteful act, then I would fully agree with you. But I don’t. Abortion takes a human life. That is not acceptable. And that is where the argument needs to start.
[/quote]

And this is the dispute. I don’t know when life begins but I highly doubt that it begins at the very moment of conception. Why? Because at that very moment there is no higher brain function - the brain has not even developed yet. What you have at this stage is a potential for human life. So the question becomes who should be given the right to decide when human life begins? Politicians? A majority of the people? Or should it be the individual? My vote is for the individual.

And for the record, I am not entirely opposed to some regulation on aborting healthy fetuses that do not threaten the mother’s life or health. However, in situations where the mother’s life and health are at risk, rape, and incest, the choice to abort should be left entirely to the individual.[/quote]

I would take it a step further if it wasn’t so grey in the waters I’d like to tread.

I would not offer abortion to anyone not using a form of contraception that had a lower failure rate than at least a condom.[/quote]

60

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Sloth’s world is very simplistic. It starts with the proposition that human life begins at the very moment of conception…[/quote]

Because it is, and because it does…that organism isn’t a fruit fly. And you know it. For all the arguments you guys make, you honestly know you’re killing an individual human life. Life isn’t defined by neurology, just look no further than bio 101. And we know the species stays constant throughout it’s entire development. It’s a human life, period. The same organism that is Mikethebear is the same organism that was once in the womb. It is the same individual human life. Period.

[quote]I have a real problem with the state telling a rape victim, “Sorry, we know it’s not your fault, but you must carry and give birth to the rapist’s child.” It’s like if someone broke into your house and the government says, “Sorry, but this poor guy obviously needs a home. You must now allow him to live in your home rent-free and provide him with food and clothing. Try to kick him out and you’ll end up in jail. That’s the law because we strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a home.”
[/quote]

You know you’ve read too much Austrian economics when you refer to an innocent child in the womb as a burgler and squatter. That stuff is rot for the soul. Kill the rapist if you must have one of the parties (I’m anti-capital punishment, myself) put to death. Spare the new human life.