Why do the baby killing advocates always play the rape card? What percentage of abortions performed are actually the result of a rape?
Whatever makes it easier for you to sleep at night I guess.
To me it seems like there are two consistent black-and-white ways to look at abortion:
-
Abortion is killing a baby. They should not be performed unless mother’s life (not just health) depends on it.
-
Abortion is mother’s choice to do with her body what she wants. Abortions can be performed anytime, unless mother’s life is in danger.
Both seem too rigid and need shades of gray. I don’t see any reasonable way to modify 1 while keeping the main premise. The following modification of 2 seem to be reasonable - no abortions if fetus is developed to the point of being able to survive on its own outside of mothers womb. Could anyone give me an idea of where on the timeline of pregnancy would it put us?
If anyone has a reasonable modification of 1, I’d be glad to hear it. However allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest and health (rather than life) concern for a mother does not seem to go well with the main premise.
[quote]gumnutza wrote:
Why do the baby killing advocates always play the rape card? What percentage of abortions performed are actually the result of a rape?
[/quote]
Well under .5%
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
I’m not for or against abortions, we men have very little to say on the matter, it’s juvenile and preposterous to think that we understand what pregnancy and childbirth is about. But I am against stupidity, and you sir, have said a pretty stupid thing.[/quote]
Excellent… so now women are not allowed to have any say in men’s issues, correct? That is absurd.
I never said that there weren’t psychological ramifications for having an abortion, and I think that many women who do have abortions will avoid having them in the future. However, I think these psychological ramifications underscore the the importance of avoiding that situation in the first place.
By definition, women only experience the “lesson” that abortion teaches after the fact, which is why you are not addressing my original point. Many people are entirely ignorant of the effect abortions have, and everyone is ignorant of the actual post-abortion experience who has not had one. My point was that having easy access to abortion feeds into a culture of ease and irresponsibility; my point was NOT that women who experience abortions would not find themselves anguished afterwards.
If you don’t think that easy access to abortions has affected the mentality of teenage girls, you haven’t spoken to any in a while. I know several girls who have quite a bit of casual sex (we’re talking 15, 16 year olds, here), and their response is they’d “just have an abortion” if they needed to.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What hurts kids more- watching mafiosos get caught with kilos of coke and being out on bail the same day? Or watching rapists or murderers get off on technicalities? You know it happens…and that’s in the papers alot more than abortions. Watching people with the right lawyer get away with everything doesn’t have more of an effect on kids?
[/quote]
Premise 1: Stealing is bad.
Premise 2: Murder is worse.
Conclusion: Therefore stealing should not be illegal.
I never argued that abortions were the singular cause of our collective problems. I really hope you don’t think I’m so much of an incompetent that I would make that argument… come on.
As far as “getting off on technicalities” goes, sometimes that’s a good thing; it is more important for the rule of law to be respected. Yes, democratic ideals can give way to pure license, but the principles of fair trials and rule of law are noble ones that can be beneficial to society.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.
It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.
That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…
SICK![/quote]
Zeb, you’re a loathsome piece of shit.
Do you know anyone who’s had an abortion? Do you know how difficult the decision was, how it stays with you the rest of your life?
Who the fuck are you to be judging anyone, you closed-minded, reactionary little bag of fear?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.
It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.
That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…
SICK![/quote]
Are all of you just as vocal when it comes to adoption and wellfare?
Then educate young girls by teaching them contraception methods and explaining the possible negative effects of abortions. Give them well-rounded info on contraception and abortion and let them make their choices.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I never said that there weren’t psychological ramifications for having an abortion, and I think that many women who do have abortions will avoid having them in the future. However, I think these psychological ramifications underscore the the importance of avoiding that situation in the first place.
By definition, women only experience the “lesson” that abortion teaches after the fact, which is why you are not addressing my original point. Many people are entirely ignorant of the effect abortions have, and everyone is ignorant of the actual post-abortion experience who has not had one. My point was that having easy access to abortion feeds into a culture of ease and irresponsibility; my point was NOT that women who experience abortions would not find themselves anguished afterwards.
If you don’t think that easy access to abortions has affected the mentality of teenage girls, you haven’t spoken to any in a while. I know several girls who have quite a bit of casual sex (we’re talking 15, 16 year olds, here), and their response is they’d “just have an abortion” if they needed to. [/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I agree with Irish. It should be much harder for criminals to get off on technicalities, and we should enact much harsher punishments.
Or we do something drastic like admitting that the possibility of legal abortions have decreased the crime rates in the US…
That cannot be proven. And even if it were proven what does it really say>
Why don’t we just execute every man sent to State or Federal prison? Since 75% are repeat offenders we would drastically lower the crime rate.
Do civilized societies do that? Do civilized societies kill babies?
[/quote]
Yikes…
Questions so loaded…
Must not touch them…
However, I have a few questions for you:
If it cannot be proven, would it be at least a step in the right direction if it was falsifiable?
What is crime if not a social label that was and is used for all kinds of purposes and not just to protect the innocent from physical harm?
Is a fertilized egg automatically a human baby?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
miniross wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Since murdering inconvenient people is acceptable, let’s go into old folks homes and into mental hospitals and murder those inconvenient people too! How dare they have the temerity to overpopulate our world! And now here comes this baby to add to our burdens! How absolutely unacceptable!
As a bonus, we could fix our Social Security dilemma overnight with this logic. Problem ended!!
Yes, I hope the USSC overules this ban, so we can get back to our meaningful lives.
If we are into mudering inconvenient people, put your name on the list.
WHEN did life become so valuable. WHEN did keepin unborns alive become such an issue. go back a score or so years, and what we did the may be seen as totally abhorrent by some. I work in this field, and i have maybe a better perspective than some.
It is a luxury of the well heeled countries like our own to make these claims.
we are lucky to live to 40.
I hope that you don’t write prescriptions – you need to learn to spell, where to put a question mark, how to put together a sentence. Do you even know what a hyphen is, bugwit? If you’re an example of the typical Briton, no wonder you guys lost your empire.
I don’t expect perfection on a website, but at least attempt to write coherently.
Have you ever been to school? To borrow from Harris: “I have to believe in God to have someone to blame you on.” (I know I probably mucked that up, Harris. Still learning 
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry about that. I had a visit to the drinking thread when i put finger to qwerty.
However, as for the cause of our Empire, then i dont think that will quite do it.
2 world wars and unrest in Colonies (like your country) placed a great strain on resoources and money.
Also, i am so sorry that this doesn’t meet your standard of internet grammer.
I could be dyslexic and you could have offended me.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
As far as “getting off on technicalities” goes, sometimes that’s a good thing; it is more important for the rule of law to be respected. Yes, democratic ideals can give way to pure license, but the principles of fair trials and rule of law are noble ones that can be beneficial to society.[/quote]
Ah so many law professors I know would agree with you and of course you are right that law must rule…
However, not only does a society need a set of laws that are enforced and must be obeyed by all (in theory), it also needs people who routinely break those laws and thereby provide a certain moral flexibility and freedom for a society…
They play an important part in the fabric of society and they are usually paid very well.
[quote]skor wrote:
Then educate young girls by teaching them contraception methods and explaining the possible negative effects of abortions. Give them well-rounded info on contraception and abortion and let them make their choices.
[/quote]
Fine, but that doesn’t mean abortion needs to be legal.
I don’t understand this constant crying about “choice.” Two people have a choice… to have sex or to not have sex. Why do people think that sex should be guaranteed consequence-free?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.
It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.
That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…
SICK!
Zeb, you’re a loathsome piece of shit.
Do you know anyone who’s had an abortion? Do you know how difficult the decision was, how it stays with you the rest of your life?
Who the fuck are you to be judging anyone, you closed-minded, reactionary little bag of fear?
[/quote]
why is there so much pressure if it is just matter, and not an actual person?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And a government run by mostly old white males should not have a say in what a woman can do regarding pregnancy. Especially in cases of rape or incest.
I hear this alot and I didn’t want it to go without a reply.
First of all, a panel of old white males decided the constitution provided the right to abortion when it never had before. So they were wrong to do that, aye?
[/quote]
I knew that would catch shit, but I really couldn’t come up with a decent way to word it.
I’m looking at it from the point of view that the government should not be able to legislate what women do. ALthough, if BB is out there, I’d like to know how the Supreme Court interpreted the original Roe v. Wade.
Of course. But women are a much larger part of the population. If 50% (just an example) of the population were black, I think the laws in the country would be different.
I’m not trying to attack the old white guys (I’ll be one one day too). But I’m just saying that I think for something like this, the sexes feel drastically different about it.
I’ve been trying. My guys have lost the last two elections.
[quote]
This world isn’t black and white like the right wants to think.
If this is true, stop playing into such cliched indentity politics.[/quote]
Once again, I think women feel drastically different about this then men do. THat’s why I bring it up.
Also, I have a huge problem with the rape/incest deal. When things like that happen, abortion should be allowed. Again, as men, being raped and getting pregant is not something we think about. But for women, it is a fear. This law is to far reaching in its expanses.
I really am horrified at the late term abortions also. However, I don’t trust the right to stop at just that- which is why they almost force someone like me be against all of their laws- they would just keep chipping away.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Interesting, the feminist groups who first pushed abortion rights are now responsible for killing more women than any other single thing.
It’s about womens rights to spread their legs with no responsibility! The feminists want women to be just as “carefree” as a man after a sexual union.
That is their single biggest motivating factor and it’s…
SICK!
Are all of you just as vocal when it comes to adoption and wellfare?[/quote]
Killing babies is bad. But letting them starve after they’re born is just fine.
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When i ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Killing babies is bad. But letting them starve after they’re born is just fine.
[/quote]
So the argument is that we should encourage the poor to kill themselves off?
…
Yay! I can twist viewpoints too!
[quote]nephorm wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Killing babies is bad. But letting them starve after they’re born is just fine.
So the argument is that we should encourage the poor to kill themselves off?
…
Yay! I can twist viewpoints too![/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]miniross wrote:
nephorm wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Killing babies is bad. But letting them starve after they’re born is just fine.
So the argument is that we should encourage the poor to kill themselves off?
…
Yay! I can twist viewpoints too!
Absolutely.[/quote]
I am very proud of you. Do you consider making a career out of it?
[quote]orion wrote:
I am very proud of you. Do you consider making a career out of it?[/quote]
My point is that conflating poverty/welfare/starving children (where do we have starving children, btw?) with the abortion issue is false and unhelpful. Poverty and dependence on welfare are not prevented by the widespread availability of abortion. But this is a convenient straw man… the big, bad conservatives just want to keep the poor people down, so by preventing abortions the poor will be forced to starve. Give me a break.
Further, it is simply unhelpful to lump the issues together. Even if there were some correlation between poverty and abortion-bans, that doesn’t obviate the moral problem of aborting a fetus. It is an argument of utility, which is to say, an amoral argument. But many laws are inconvenient in this respect; most laws have some undesirable effects that must be corrected, but not necessarily through eliminating them.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
I am very proud of you. Do you consider making a career out of it?
My point is that conflating poverty/welfare/starving children (where do we have starving children, btw?) with the abortion issue is false and unhelpful. Poverty and dependence on welfare are not prevented by the widespread availability of abortion. But this is a convenient straw man… the big, bad conservatives just want to keep the poor people down, so by preventing abortions the poor will be forced to starve. Give me a break.
Further, it is simply unhelpful to lump the issues together. Even if there were some correlation between poverty and abortion-bans, that doesn’t obviate the moral problem of aborting a fetus. It is an argument of utility, which is to say, an amoral argument. But many laws are inconvenient in this respect; most laws have some undesirable effects that must be corrected, but not necessarily through eliminating them.[/quote]
If it is helpful or not to lump this issues together depends on your agenda. In a complex society such things simply are connected and it is definitely not helpful to ignore those connections when passing laws that actually solve problems.*
To ignore them because they do not fit your agenda (not necessarily your ,nephorm?s, agenda) means to be willfully ignorant and let other people deal with the consequences of those decisions.
Like it or not, poor people have less of a voice in the decision making process and they are under closer surveillance by law enforcement agencies.
By the way the argument may be amoral but the consequences are not, because it reduces human suffering. Not the alleged suffering of a random lump of cells with some potential; real, living, breathing human beings with a fully developed CNS.
PS: * Of course it is helpful to ignore cultural complexity when people start to use such issues to manipulate the unwashed masses…