Abortion
- Thread starter JOEBIALEK
- Start date
I'm pointing out that abortion itself can be used to "control women". Abortion absolutists go around assigning motives to people that don't agree with them as though they could read their minds. Never realizing that your position is just as inflexible and simplistic as the anti-abortion absolutists you hate. You're two sides of the same coin.
No, it removes her "right" to kill someone who has the misfortune of being located in her uterus. She can do whatever she wants to 'herself'.
And if you've read the whole thread, you'll see that I base my limits on brain function in the baby. I have no objection to the morning after pill when the baby is still just a mass of cells. But once it has a brain, it stops being a 'mass of cells', and becomes a person.
None whatsoever. I don't treat humans and animals as if there was no difference between them. They are different. And animals are a natural, healthy part of our diet.
.
Last edited:
Only if it is done against her will. In your scenario, a woman could carry the child to term, and sue for child support (and almost certainly win). The fact that she could choose to end the pregnancy does not mean she is compelled to.
If you don't have an aversion to abortion based on some religious dogma, please enlighten us. What is the basis for your opposition to the status quo?
The best opponents can hope for is for Roe V Wade to be overturned. This would leave it to the states, which would result in a patchwork quilt of legal limitations, outright bans, and states like California where there is virtually no chance of anything changing. Poor women in states where it is banned would have to try and leave the state, and there might even be legislation making it illegal to leave the state to seek an abortion. That would bring the back alley abortionists back, leading all of the negative consequences of underground abortions. Death, sterility, maybe even jail time. The wealthy would be able to leave with no consequence.
Yes, allowing people to seek abortions is just the same as telling them that they cannot.
I believe that, at some point in the pregnancy, the "fetus" becomes a baby. Past that point, killing it is murder unless done in self defense (imminent threat of death), or the baby is so sick it won't survive anyway.
Do you believe abortion should be legal until the moment the baby is actually born? Why not?
Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you has bad motives, is a misogynist, and want to control women is the same as an anti-abortion person saying all those in favor of abortion are evil. It's the demonization of your opponents that makes you the same.
Last edited:
Really? You're really asking that question?
You're telling women they don't have governance over a part of their own body.
Well, why should anyone take you seriously?
That's beside the point. I could care less if you remember them. Hell, I wouldn't know the names of some of the people I've hit on.
Just to clear things up. You're so intent on blaming the woman for something that requires two people's genetic material that I'm trying to remind you of the man's responsibility.
Madanthonywayne said:
You're telling women they don't have governance over a part of their own body.
Well, why should anyone take you seriously?
That's beside the point. I could care less if you remember them. Hell, I wouldn't know the names of some of the people I've hit on.
Just to clear things up. You're so intent on blaming the woman for something that requires two people's genetic material that I'm trying to remind you of the man's responsibility.
On health and emancipation
Source: Planned Parenthood
Link:
Title: "Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact", by Susanne Pichler (revised by Deborah Golub, MPH)
Date: December 29, 2006 (May 16, 2007)
I came across this while following up on another topic. There is some information worth considering here:
Source: Planned Parenthood
Link:
Title: "Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact", by Susanne Pichler (revised by Deborah Golub, MPH)
Date: December 29, 2006 (May 16, 2007)
I came across this while following up on another topic. There is some information worth considering here:
Last edited:
madanthonywayne:
Arguments can be had, of course, over how much of a "someone" there is to be killed.
What seems to be largely ignored by pro-lifers are all the responsibilities and obligations that go with carrying a child to term and providing for it thereafter. Abortion is so often not just a matter of mere "convenience" or whim, although it is often portrayed as such, and admittedly it can be for a few.
That's fair enough. Everybody has to draw the line somewhere, as I said to Lou Natic.
Is that line absolute for you, or are you willing to adjust depending on circumstances? If the continued pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, would you permit termination? What about if it would have long-term negative health implications for the mother? What about long-term psychological effects?
This is an argument for another thread, and I think we've already had it. My position is that it is hypocritical to proclaim that you are "pro-life" and at the same time advocate the death penalty for crimes, meat-eating as a lifestyle choice and the bombing of people labelled as terrorists. And yet, so often we find people who claim to hold all those views simultaneously. It suggests to me that they don't have a consistent moral compass.
I believe that it ought to depend on the individual circumstances. And I mean ALL the circumstances, not just a consideration of the interests of the "baby". Late-term abortions should only be performed with good reason.
On the other hand, I am very wary of the slide down the slippery slope. Once you start limiting the time that abortion is theoretically available, there's a risk of chipping away and chipping away until suddenly we find that legal abortion is no longer permitted in any circumstance. Then, we're back to the bad old days of backyard abortionists killing both child and mother.
Arguments can be had, of course, over how much of a "someone" there is to be killed.
What seems to be largely ignored by pro-lifers are all the responsibilities and obligations that go with carrying a child to term and providing for it thereafter. Abortion is so often not just a matter of mere "convenience" or whim, although it is often portrayed as such, and admittedly it can be for a few.
That's fair enough. Everybody has to draw the line somewhere, as I said to Lou Natic.
Is that line absolute for you, or are you willing to adjust depending on circumstances? If the continued pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, would you permit termination? What about if it would have long-term negative health implications for the mother? What about long-term psychological effects?
This is an argument for another thread, and I think we've already had it. My position is that it is hypocritical to proclaim that you are "pro-life" and at the same time advocate the death penalty for crimes, meat-eating as a lifestyle choice and the bombing of people labelled as terrorists. And yet, so often we find people who claim to hold all those views simultaneously. It suggests to me that they don't have a consistent moral compass.
I believe that it ought to depend on the individual circumstances. And I mean ALL the circumstances, not just a consideration of the interests of the "baby". Late-term abortions should only be performed with good reason.
On the other hand, I am very wary of the slide down the slippery slope. Once you start limiting the time that abortion is theoretically available, there's a risk of chipping away and chipping away until suddenly we find that legal abortion is no longer permitted in any circumstance. Then, we're back to the bad old days of backyard abortionists killing both child and mother.
of course the father has a say in it, he was there when they made the baaby so he should be in on the decision about a termination or keeping the baby!
fathers pay an important part in raising a child aswell.
Being a relatively normal human, I'll admit to some discomfort over late term abortions. It's a good thing they are extremely rare. Whether or not they should happen is between a woman and her doctor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
There may be some who are genuinely pro life. People who aren't drunk on religious dogma, aren't pro war and pro death penalty. I've at least heard of some Catholics who tried to be consistent about those issues (but then they undercut their credibility by being against sperm banks because of their opposition to masturbation!). But you never hear from these people. But who could forget Randall Terry, the leader of Operation Rescue?
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country... "
"There is no difference between killing a four year-old child and aborting a pre-born 3-month-old [fetus]."
"I am not a pacifist, I celebrate the Fourth of July and all that that means, which was guns and bullets to get freedom."
I don't have to demonize these people; hearing the insanity they spew does that well enough. Not all who oppose abortion are in favor of a theocracy, but I've never heard of a proponent of theocracy who wasn't rabidly anti-abortion (and birth control as well for that matter).
Anyone even passingly familiar with the history of the issue in this country knows that things were not better for women when abortions were criminalized.
If you are truly pro life, you could impress me by putting your money where your mouth is. Supporting a less belligerent foreign policy, universal health care (babies are expensive, and economics plays a major role in the decision to terminate a pregnancy) subsidized day care, subsidized birth control.
The overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion are motivated by a desire to punish those who live in a way that does not meet with their approval (and it's almost always justified with religious dogma). Nothing posted in this thread has changed my mind about that.
i am with you on this repo
So if a woman decides to abort her full term infant, while she's in labor because she's pissed at the biological father, no problem? But once the baby passes thru the birth canal, then it's murder? Well, like they say: location, location, location.
Why is it so hard for you to differentiate between protecting innocent human life, and punishing the worst criminals? There is no contradiction there whatsoever. You execute murderers, in part, to help protect the innocent.
AGAIN. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN SUPPORTING THE EXECUTION OF CONVICTED MURDERERS AND BEING AGAINST KILLING BABIES.
Clearly, he's a zealot.
Quoting one of the most extreme zealots as though he were representative of the majority of pro-life people is demonizing them.
LOL. So I have to be a pacifist socialist to not want to murder babies? What about you, if you support all that other stuff (I'll bet you do), why aren't you pro-life? Isn't that inconsistent? Shouldn't you also support the death penalty, since there's no difference between murdering babies and executing convicted murderers? Oh, and shouldn't you also be "pro-war"?
Stop assigning motives to people. What are you, the Amazing Kreskin?
Last edited:
This is a ludicrous straw man fallacy. You are harming your credibility if you think that even approaches a serious counterpoint.
Killing people in order to impress on people that killing is wrong? Doesn't the book you believe in say "Thou shalt not kill"?
Romans 12:19-21 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
He was the leader of one of the largest, and most vocal "pro life" groups in the U.S. Where are all of the moderates who denounce him? When operation rescue was in full swing in the early '90s, I certainly don't remember any mainstream Christians denouncing him, or his tactics. Nor have I come across any since then.
Though I'm in favor of the status quo, I'm also in favor of any alternatives that might reduce the need for an abortion in the first place. The crucial difference is that I believe they should be freely chosen, rather than enforced by the state. If couples choose to have an abortion rather than a baby because they have no insurance, and cannot pay for the medical expenses, that is tragic. If they are choosing to have an abortion rather than a baby because they could not get birth control, or they weren't educated in its proper use, that is tragic. The list goes on and on.
My stance is always in favor of reducing or eliminating suffering. That means no wars that could have been avoided, because war will always mean the death of innocents.
You don't need clairvoyance; all it takes is reading what the majority of anti- abortion people freely say.
no your right fathers dont alwasy stick around, so should young girls have abortions just in case the father walks away?
I'll grant you this much MadAnt; you're at least willing to allow for some legal abortion, and you don't seem to have an objection to birth control. With people like this out there, you seem moderate and sane by comparison.
After Idalia and Jose Moran's son was born by C-section, Idalia Moran's doctor advised her not to get pregnant again for two to three years, and prescribed the pill.
When she went to the pharmacy, the cashier said, "You know what? I cannot refill them because the pharmacist says it's against his religion because it's abortion."
Moran told CBS she was stunned and ashamed.
"I felt really bad, because I thought maybe these are for abortion," Moran said. "I don't know."
Across the country, more and more pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for religious reasons.
After Idalia and Jose Moran's son was born by C-section, Idalia Moran's doctor advised her not to get pregnant again for two to three years, and prescribed the pill.
When she went to the pharmacy, the cashier said, "You know what? I cannot refill them because the pharmacist says it's against his religion because it's abortion."
Moran told CBS she was stunned and ashamed.
"I felt really bad, because I thought maybe these are for abortion," Moran said. "I don't know."
Across the country, more and more pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for religious reasons.
Orleander i think you should devide two issues here. One being comited relationships and the other being short term relationships
In the first YES most fathers will stick around to deal with it. Of corse there is a chance that they wouldnt but then sometime in the future the mother might walk away from the family too so thats an irrational argument
In short term relationships however your right people are likly to walk away. They arnt comited to eachother so why should they be comited to a child.
At this point i would like to ask a question of you.
Say you had a one night stand and got pregnant, the father says "ill pay half the abortion costs". You say "no thanks im keeping it". Would you then feel you had anyright to force the father to pay for that desision?
In the first YES most fathers will stick around to deal with it. Of corse there is a chance that they wouldnt but then sometime in the future the mother might walk away from the family too so thats an irrational argument
In short term relationships however your right people are likly to walk away. They arnt comited to eachother so why should they be comited to a child.
At this point i would like to ask a question of you.
Say you had a one night stand and got pregnant, the father says "ill pay half the abortion costs". You say "no thanks im keeping it". Would you then feel you had anyright to force the father to pay for that desision?
No, but I think the say should be hers. Not the guy who got her pregnant, not her parents who judge, not her friends who gossip, etc.
Its a personal decision being made one woman at a time. I don't understand why so many people think they have a say in it. (especially the men)
Yep. There is an easier way for him to control who has his children than by telling women to get an abortion. Its called wearing a condom or not having sex.