Leo why do you think a women should have a right to have a child aborted?
Is Abortion a right someone should have?
- Thread starter hug-a-tree
- Start date
Here is what New Jersy has to say about their 3rd grade students:
Recognize how authors use humor, sarcasm, and imagery to extend meaning.
Here is what New Jersy has to say about their 7-8 grade students:
Recognize and respond to visual and print messages of humor, irony, metaphor.
Here is what New Jersy has to say about their 12th grade students:
Analyze and evaluate the appropriateness of diction and figurative language (e.g., irony, paradox).
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/02/s3_lal.htm
Recognize how authors use humor, sarcasm, and imagery to extend meaning.
Here is what New Jersy has to say about their 7-8 grade students:
Recognize and respond to visual and print messages of humor, irony, metaphor.
Here is what New Jersy has to say about their 12th grade students:
Analyze and evaluate the appropriateness of diction and figurative language (e.g., irony, paradox).
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/02/s3_lal.htm
hug-a-tree:
A child is conscious. It has a mental image of itself, and a conception that it has an ongoing existence and a future. It has a well-developed nervous system and brain. It has a highly developed ability to feel pain.
A few-week-old foetus has none of these things.
angrybellsprout:
Careful. Your prejudice is showing. Many women who have abortions are very far from being "dumb sluts", despite what your personal experience might be.
I don't see anybody arguing that the majority of abortions result from rape.
Once again, I urge you to do at least a little reading on the matter. Otherwise, you'll just continue to make yourself look stupid.
No method of contraception is 100% effective. Accidents happen. Let's be real about it.
I specifically said I wasn't talking about murdering children in my previous post. Didn't you read it? We can discuss the issue of infanticide after we've dealt with abortion, if you like.
Maybe so. But is stupidity a crime? Should a woman have to support a child forever because she was stupid once? I'm sure you think she should.
The "conservative" world is so black and white, isn't it? There are no shades of grey. It must be very comforting for you to never have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. One rule fits all. Every time. And you know what's right for everybody, in all cases - even when it's none of your business.
Which liberal philosophy are you thinking of, specifically? The philosophy of "free love", perhaps? In that case, you may be right. Other liberal philosophies, of course, have different things to say. This is another area which you ought to look into, perhaps.
Ok, you've got to first base with this. Prima facie, a foetus has a right to life. That's right number 1 in the picture. Now, we just have to convince you to acknowledge right number 2 - the right of the mother. Then, at stage 3, we can start to teach you to balance right 1 against right 2. The end result of balancing these rights against each other may go one way or another, depending on many factors, which we can discuss if you wish. But first, do you acknowledge that pregnant women have ANY rights at all? If so, what are their rights, in your view?
You didn't read up on this, did you? Well, see my response to hug-a-tree, above, for a start.
I really urge you to read some internet sites. There are organisations dedicated specifically to this question, which have lots of information you can look at. I hope I won't have to teach you everything.
I agree. So? Do you believe that all humans ought to have identical rights, regardless of stage of development? If so, why don't 2 year olds have the right to vote?
Right. That isn't one of the most common arguments. In fact, I can't recall ever reading anything by a pro-choicer making that argument. But perhaps you can show me something.
Do you think that's a realistic solution? Do you think poor people will voluntarily abstain from sex if you tell them to? African people have been told by the Catholic Church to abstain from sex, because the Church doesn't approve of contraception, yet it wants to slow or stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. Has the Church's policy worked or not? Can you think of any possible reasons for that?
Look, to make this easier for you, let's restrict this to middle-class people wanting abortions. Ok? That way, we needn't get into disadvantage, since you seem to have some emotional baggage there. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that our middle-class woman could support a baby, if she didn't have the abortion. Then what? You think she should be forced to do that? Or what?
Is it? Why?
A child is conscious. It has a mental image of itself, and a conception that it has an ongoing existence and a future. It has a well-developed nervous system and brain. It has a highly developed ability to feel pain.
A few-week-old foetus has none of these things.
angrybellsprout:
Careful. Your prejudice is showing. Many women who have abortions are very far from being "dumb sluts", despite what your personal experience might be.
I don't see anybody arguing that the majority of abortions result from rape.
Once again, I urge you to do at least a little reading on the matter. Otherwise, you'll just continue to make yourself look stupid.
No method of contraception is 100% effective. Accidents happen. Let's be real about it.
I specifically said I wasn't talking about murdering children in my previous post. Didn't you read it? We can discuss the issue of infanticide after we've dealt with abortion, if you like.
Maybe so. But is stupidity a crime? Should a woman have to support a child forever because she was stupid once? I'm sure you think she should.
The "conservative" world is so black and white, isn't it? There are no shades of grey. It must be very comforting for you to never have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. One rule fits all. Every time. And you know what's right for everybody, in all cases - even when it's none of your business.
Which liberal philosophy are you thinking of, specifically? The philosophy of "free love", perhaps? In that case, you may be right. Other liberal philosophies, of course, have different things to say. This is another area which you ought to look into, perhaps.
Ok, you've got to first base with this. Prima facie, a foetus has a right to life. That's right number 1 in the picture. Now, we just have to convince you to acknowledge right number 2 - the right of the mother. Then, at stage 3, we can start to teach you to balance right 1 against right 2. The end result of balancing these rights against each other may go one way or another, depending on many factors, which we can discuss if you wish. But first, do you acknowledge that pregnant women have ANY rights at all? If so, what are their rights, in your view?
You didn't read up on this, did you? Well, see my response to hug-a-tree, above, for a start.
I really urge you to read some internet sites. There are organisations dedicated specifically to this question, which have lots of information you can look at. I hope I won't have to teach you everything.
I agree. So? Do you believe that all humans ought to have identical rights, regardless of stage of development? If so, why don't 2 year olds have the right to vote?
Right. That isn't one of the most common arguments. In fact, I can't recall ever reading anything by a pro-choicer making that argument. But perhaps you can show me something.
Do you think that's a realistic solution? Do you think poor people will voluntarily abstain from sex if you tell them to? African people have been told by the Catholic Church to abstain from sex, because the Church doesn't approve of contraception, yet it wants to slow or stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. Has the Church's policy worked or not? Can you think of any possible reasons for that?
Look, to make this easier for you, let's restrict this to middle-class people wanting abortions. Ok? That way, we needn't get into disadvantage, since you seem to have some emotional baggage there. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that our middle-class woman could support a baby, if she didn't have the abortion. Then what? You think she should be forced to do that? Or what?
Is it? Why?
Try attending a 3rd grade language arts class in new jersey, then rethink what you have recently stated...
James R said:
22% of abortions are performed after 11 weeks of gestation. What is your justification for those people, what about partial birth abortions?
99% is not good enough? 99% protection for condoms, and 99% for birth control pills. Use both and that's not good enough protection? Care to tell us the odds of pregnancy when both are used?
And what about adoption? Is adoption not an option? Is adoption somehow more immoral than not having protected sex and than aborting a fetus? In my opinion, at least adoption gives that future child a chance to live their life.
Why attempt to justify those murders which take place during the first 11 weeks of life?
There are only two justifications for abortion, rape and medical.
That is a very shoddy argument, as it can be turned around to say buy lyk omg u birth hitler omgs !!!!!111!!111.....
I already answered the question, take a good bit of time reading page 8 and try to find the answer.
angrybellsprout said:
That's why I removed it. But look at who I was responding to. My post was directed toward James R.
And I am not justifying the abortions done before 11 weeks, but James is making the claim that a fetus that is only a few weeks old can't be considered a child. So I tell him the statistic of how many abortions are done after 11 weeks. And we can agree that after 11 weeks significant development has been made.
===============================================
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
Rape 0.3 % (0.2-0.6 %)
Incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
Physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
Physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
Fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
Mental health of mother depends on definition
"Personal choice" 98% (78-99 %)
--Too young/immature/not ready for responsibility (32 %)
--Economic 25% (21-28 %)
--To avoid adjusting life (16 %)
--Mother single or in poor relationship (12-13 %)
--Enough children already (4-8 %)
13 July 2005
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
Rape 0.3 % (0.2-0.6 %)
Incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
Physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
Physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
Fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
Mental health of mother depends on definition
"Personal choice" 98% (78-99 %)
--Too young/immature/not ready for responsibility (32 %)
--Economic 25% (21-28 %)
--To avoid adjusting life (16 %)
--Mother single or in poor relationship (12-13 %)
--Enough children already (4-8 %)
13 July 2005
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
QuarkMoon:
There can be all kinds of justifications, depending on the individual case. What proportion of those 22% were related to the health of the mother, for example? What proportion involved children with birth defects or genetic abnormalities such as Down's syndrome? And what are the statistics for partial-birth abortions?
(Why would anyone use both?)
There are 230 million people in the US, for example (half women, and only a certain percentage of fertile females). If 1 in 100 condoms fails, and 1 in 10 of those failures results in conception, that's still 20,000-30,000 unwanted pregancies each year.
And we're not just talking about failures of contraceptives as a cause of accidental pregnancy.
Adoption is an option in some cases. However, often women are conflicted about adoption. Adoption is a risky business for a child. Some adopted children go on to lead happy and fulfilled lives, but many do not. Many have ongoing issues of abandonment by their natural parents, for example.
How many people would like to adopt a child with Down's syndrome, do you think?
Pregnancy itself is also a burden on the mother. She is unable to work for a time, and pregnancy takes a toll on her body. Moreover, there can be many psychological effects related to an unwanted pregnancy - particularly in the case of rape, but also in other less extreme circumstances. For example, a woman may fall pregnant to a man who she knows will not support the child in any way. She doesn't want to give the child up for adoption, yet she cannot realistically support it herself.
The point is: it's always complicated. What I ask (again) is why anybody other than the mother ought to have the right to make such a decision. Why the "one glove fits all" approach, when clearly it doesn't?
There can be all kinds of justifications, depending on the individual case. What proportion of those 22% were related to the health of the mother, for example? What proportion involved children with birth defects or genetic abnormalities such as Down's syndrome? And what are the statistics for partial-birth abortions?
(Why would anyone use both?)
There are 230 million people in the US, for example (half women, and only a certain percentage of fertile females). If 1 in 100 condoms fails, and 1 in 10 of those failures results in conception, that's still 20,000-30,000 unwanted pregancies each year.
And we're not just talking about failures of contraceptives as a cause of accidental pregnancy.
Adoption is an option in some cases. However, often women are conflicted about adoption. Adoption is a risky business for a child. Some adopted children go on to lead happy and fulfilled lives, but many do not. Many have ongoing issues of abandonment by their natural parents, for example.
How many people would like to adopt a child with Down's syndrome, do you think?
Pregnancy itself is also a burden on the mother. She is unable to work for a time, and pregnancy takes a toll on her body. Moreover, there can be many psychological effects related to an unwanted pregnancy - particularly in the case of rape, but also in other less extreme circumstances. For example, a woman may fall pregnant to a man who she knows will not support the child in any way. She doesn't want to give the child up for adoption, yet she cannot realistically support it herself.
The point is: it's always complicated. What I ask (again) is why anybody other than the mother ought to have the right to make such a decision. Why the "one glove fits all" approach, when clearly it doesn't?
Let's look at those majority stats for reasons given for abortion, shall we? Otherwise, we're just mucking about at the edges.
A large proportion of unwanted pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Is it ok to irrevocably change the life of, say, a 15 year old girl, because of a silly mistake?
If a woman cannot support a child at a reasonable standard of living, might it not be better, both for any future child and for the woman, to postpone pregnancy until a time when the woman is ready and the pregnancy is wanted?
This is a wide area, which is one of those case-by-case issues I mentioned above.
I mentioned this above.
This is most often finance-related. Is it ok to reduce the quality of life of previous children in order to bring another child into the world and support it? Always?
A large proportion of unwanted pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Is it ok to irrevocably change the life of, say, a 15 year old girl, because of a silly mistake?
If a woman cannot support a child at a reasonable standard of living, might it not be better, both for any future child and for the woman, to postpone pregnancy until a time when the woman is ready and the pregnancy is wanted?
This is a wide area, which is one of those case-by-case issues I mentioned above.
I mentioned this above.
This is most often finance-related. Is it ok to reduce the quality of life of previous children in order to bring another child into the world and support it? Always?
James R said:
Because it's not just her child. Until women are able to have children asexually, the man who helped create that baby has just as much say in the future of that fetus as she does.
And why not? If a child is so unwanted that the women will resort to abortion, why not use both so accidental pregnency is an even smaller possibility? Does that responsibility not fall on the consensual partners? Are they not accountable in the slightest? This attitude of zero accountability is the thorn in the side of our society.
And this is somehow worse than terminating and not giving the fetus a chance at life? How do you figure? I would think a chance at a fulfilling life is better than termination.