Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right to Life Ethical Considerations
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 300 (345724)
09-01-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 12:28 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
Well, she didn't want to be raped either... Can she undue that? Can she unrape herself?
No, but she can un-pregnancy herself. It's called "abortion."
Yes, she should carry the child.
Why? What right does that fetus have to gestate in that uterus? Let it find another, willing uterus if it wants to gestate so bad.
Oh, it can't do that? It'll die when we try to take it out? Well, that's a tragedy, but what fault of the mother's is that?
Then you can abort 30 seconds prior to delivery? I hardly see how 30 seconds has the ability to determine whether or not they are a blob of well-formed molecules or they are a human being with unalienable rights.
Speaking of lies...
Look, this never happens. You're just making this up.
I always saw it as a symbiotic relationship between a mother and a child developed by an absolute natural occurance.
Well, consider yourself corrected. The physical relationship is quite antagonistic at almost every level.
Maybe we should kill all fetus from now on for all species.
Or, hey, how about this middle ground - women who want abortions get them, women who don't want them don't have to have them.
Seems to me that's the perfect compromise. I don't know why you're obsessed with the extremes, here - why does it have to be all or nothing for you? Why does it have to be either nobody gets an abortion, or everybody does?
Isn't that pretty stupid, actually?
I'm only trained as lowly EMT. I know nothing of pregnancy, especially nothing about the delivery.
I'd noticed that, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 12:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 300 (345755)
09-01-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
09-01-2006 12:53 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
No, but she can un-pregnancy herself. It's called "abortion."
And I could unmarry myself through murder. Is everything now copacetic if I did that?
What right does that fetus have to gestate in that uterus?
LOL! As if that fetus had any control over its own gestation. You seem to be implying that a fetus is willfuly and maliciously accosting his/her own mother. It was the parents that placed the child there to begin with. How about making them responsible? That's like kidnapping someone and placing them into your home, then shooting them, then calling the cops and telling them that this man unlawfully entered your domicile. It just doesn't fly.
Speaking of lies... Look, this never happens. You're just making this up.
It was a hypothetical scenario. I'm asking so as to establish a definate line of demarcation. You say, 'birth,' but what does birth constitute? I only ask because a partial birth abortion is giving birth to a baby that is viable outside of the womb-- that is, up until a pair of surgical scissors are jammed into the base of the skull. So, what constitutes birth? The exiting of the birth canal?
Well, consider yourself corrected. The physical relationship is quite antagonistic at almost every level.
Well, this is a bit of a pickle for you, because on the one hand you are the great defender of nature and on the other you are the great defender of a women's right to do whatever thing she relativistically deems righteous. I assume that you can appreciate that if there is no real measure of right or wrong, least of all in natural occurances, that you can in no wise be upset at a fetus that develops the way nature intended it to.
Or, hey, how about this middle ground - women who want abortions get them, women who don't want them don't have to have them.
With the way you portrayed gestation who would ever want to be pregnant? Death sounds more appealing than the way you portrayed a mother/child relationship. The way you made it sound I'd opt for high powered electrodes secured to my nipples for several hours of unmitigated torture.
Seems to me that's the perfect compromise. I don't know why you're obsessed with the extremes, here - why does it have to be all or nothing for you? Why does it have to be either nobody gets an abortion, or everybody does?
Crash, I'm not a very extreme guy. I'm sure to you it seems that way. But I see this as murder, okay? To me, its the same as you asking me to compromise with a terrorist who says, "Okay, we'll compromise. If you let me kill all the people in Tower 1 of the Trade Center, I will let all the people from Tower 2 go free. Deal?" I understand that getting pregnant is not a pleasant experience, especially for a young girl who was most likely seeking love and hoped to find it in a shared sexual experience. I'm not uncompassionate to that. I don't see people as abject sinners stoking the fires of hell. I see people who are trapped in sin, (and consider sin to be anything unhealthy to the self and society, not merely a pact between God and man) who are about to make one bad situation even worse.
quote:
I'm only trained as lowly EMT. I know nothing of pregnancy, especially nothing about the delivery.
I'd noticed that, actually.
.......as long as your powers of perception are astute........

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 5:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 243 of 300 (345771)
09-01-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by crashfrog
09-01-2006 12:35 PM


Re: A counter-affirmation for 2B
"I affirm my belief that women who have sex are all sluts, unless they're having it with me. Even the married ones are slutty, just a little bit.
"I affirm my belief that these women need to be punished for being sluts, and the best way to do that is to inflict a dangerous medical condition on them, a condition that is the leading cause of death for young women worldwide, and make sure they have no medical recourse to recitfy the situation. Of course, we're gonna take the baby away when it's over; why should a slut get to raise a child?"
"I affirm how angry I am that, once, I gifted a woman with my seed and in spite of this amazing gift, she threw it back in my face by getting an abortion. I affirm how angry I am that a woman would dare to determine, for herself, what other human beings were allowed to reside in her uterus. I affirm that once a man pokes it, he owns it. I affirm that I will devote my life to making sure than women do not dare to determine for themselves who is allowed to take up residence in her body and leach nutrients and resources from it."
We comunicate that we believe in the life and value of unborn children. We consider the adult responsible for the life of the unborn child just as an adult is responsible for the life of a child after birth. From this you arive at the above?
You ARE full of anger. Anger that comes from a hatred of being used or enslaved in some way. You should really let that go. It's what causes you to lash out at people who do not deserve it, making unfounded and rediculous claims about them. Lashing out serves no purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 12:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 5:25 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 300 (345795)
09-01-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 10:02 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
So, do you suggest we start searching the menstrual fluid of all women who might possibly be expelling a fertilized egg from their bodies, since most fertilized eggs never implant? After all, those fertilized eggs are human life, according to you, with all the rights that you or I have, right?
quote:
Its simple, most women aren't aware that they are pregnant well into the first month and often into the second. Virtually any pregnancy test will tell you if you are pregnant by that point. But as a rule of thumb, I would say that so long as foreign objects don't penetrate the cervix there is no risk of terminating a pregnancy on accident.
Er, this doesn't answer my question at all.
Most fertilized eggs, which by your definition are human and must be afforded the same rights as you and I, never implant.
If those human beings have the same rights as you and I, should't we be at least making some effort to try to save them? Shouldn't we be collecting the menstrual fluid just in case there's a person in there?
Also, do you suggest that girls and women who are impregnated by their rapists be forced to carry their pregnancies to term? After all, that fertilized egg is entitled to human rights the same as yours or mine, right?
quote:
Yes, of course they have rights as well. Afterall, its not the babies fault, its the rapist sperm donar's fault. There is no sense in turning one bad situation into another bad situation. Of course, I would understand if the woman could not bear the thought of rearing her rapists child. Any adoption agency would be more than happy to rectify that for the mother.
So, a fetus actually has, according to you, more rights than a woman, correct?
As in, a fetus's right to take up residence in a woman's uterus always trumps those of a woman to retain her body autonomy, potentally permenantly disfiguring her body, exposing her to risks to her health, mental health, and her very life?
I can tell that you are a man. Do you think that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is some kind of walk in the park for a woman or a girl, physically or mentally?
Are YOU goinf to pay the medical expenses? What about the funeral expenses if she dies? Are you going to support her other children if she is disabled or killed by this pregnancy?
And if that fertilized egg has the same rights as you or I implants itself inside a woman's fallopian tube, what then?
quote:
That's a great question. You're the only person ever to ask me that. An ectopic pregnancy is the one instance where I personally believe that abortion is acceptable. The reason being, so far there is no way to reverse an ectopic pregnancy once the fertilized egg begins to develop. As well, there is no concievable way that the mother would survive this as the baby was growing larger. The baby could not live outside of the womb in their own despite any neo-natal care. There is no way to save them both, which in this case, you have to be primarily concerned for the mothers health.
So, a woman is just a walking uterus to you, then, and only the death of that uterus should allow any consideration to the woman or girl at all.
The fetus's human rights trump the woman's every single time.
It's so funny that you claimed to respect women's individual rights before.
There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion". That is a non-medical, inflamatory term invented by radical anti-choice political activists.
quote:
Is that so?
Yes, that is so.
quote:
Then what is thisprocedure called?
Intact dilation and extraction.
quote:
Are you suggesting that a law was passed against fictitious medical procedures?
Yes.
Well, if not "fictitious", then intentionally vague so it would apply to other abrtion procedures. Oh, and they are not illegal in every state.
From the wiki:
Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures. [2] While the term partial-birth abortion mainly refers to the Intact dilation and extraction procedure, courts have found that legislation intended to ban so-called partial-birth abortions could be interpreted to apply to some dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures.
quote:
Even supposing that it was wholly invented to illicit sympathy, what about this procedure? Is D&E or D&C invented too?
No, those are medical terms which refer to specific procedures.
A fetus is not a child. That's the difference.
quote:
Then perhaps you can set the record straight for when a person gets to become a full-fledged person. Because as of now there appears to be no clear distinction.
For sure, at birth.
But before that, it's a sliding scale. A bundle of cells isn't a person, for example. A fetus that has no self-awareness and no consciousness also isn't a person.
For an exact moment? Sorry, life doesn't work like that. This is a gray area.
I know you right wingers don't like ambiguity, but there it is.
And, if you respected the rights of women, you wouldn't be assuming some right to meddle in our personal medical or reproductive business.
quote:
Saving a life, any life, is my buisness.
So, you're a pacifist, opposed to all war and also the death penalty?
quote:
That's like saying the police don't have the right to meddle in your affairs because you are exercising your right to murder your husband.
My husband is a person. A several week old fetus is not aware of anything, has no consciousness. They are not comparable.
quote:
It doesn't fly. But I do respect the rights of women.
...except when they have a fertilized egg inside of them, and then you consider that fertilized egg's rights to trump those of women.
You do know that most people who get abortions were using contraception that failed, don't you?
quote:
Yes, I do know that. But is that supposed to make the act all peachy?
What act?
And by the way, how much have you pushed your local schools to teach all children accurate and comprehensive reproductive health from an early age, and pushed to make contraception free and available to all who want it? That would go a long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancy.
quote:
No, talking about abstinence til marriage and then turning around by saying, "but in the event you dismiss everything I just told you, here are some 'rough riders,' 'trojans,' these here glow in the dark, this one is supposed to be good for anal sex, and this one tastes like cinnamin. But hey, I was being serious about that abstinence thing." It kind of sends the wrong message. Aside from which, how young should we be discussing "reproductive freedom?"
We should be teaching age-appropriate sexual health K-12.
And can you please refrain from the strawman characterizations of sex education classes?
And you do know that abstinence-only programs don't work, and actually lead to teens being more likely to engage in anal and oral sex, don't you? They do delay teens choosing to have intercourse by about a year, but they do not prevent it. Also, those teens are less likely to use contraception or take safer sex precautions because they don't have the knowledge or the tools to do so.
Abstinece-only is an abject failure.
And I thought you goal was reducing abortion?
Now you seem to be saying that your goal is keeping those in the groups most at risk ignorant of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Does that seem a smart way to go about things if reducing unwanted pregnancy was your goal?
Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that a several week-old fetus is the same as a walking-talking independent adult?
quote:
To answer your question better, yes I would expect that.
That's stupid.
Sorry, but it is.
quote:
Does walking and talking and independance mean more?
Yes, of course it does.
quote:
Most people are particularly horrified when children die.
Yes. But fetuses are not children.
quote:
That's why Al-Jazeera is sure to post pictures of babies that became collateral damage. There's something about it that really allows for us to empathize with their innocence. Do you feel no remorse for children that die, or if even if you do, is it worse or easier to stomach when an adult dies in front of you?
I don't like any person to die.
But a bundle of cells that doesn't have any self-awareness, can't think, can't feel, and can't reason isn't a person.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 7:34 PM nator has replied
 Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-02-2006 12:22 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 300 (345798)
09-01-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-01-2006 3:16 PM


Re: A counter-affirmation for 2B
quote:
We comunicate that we believe in the life and value of unborn children.
No.
We comunicate that we believe in the life and value of people who are already here, including children.
We don't do very well on that score, do we?
Here in the US, we let millions of children go hungry every day.
We let millions of them go without health insurance.
We let most of them go to second rate or even deplorable schools where a shocking number of them come out illiterate.
We imprison lots and lots of them as a result of this impoverished upbringing.
Our rates of death and physical and emotional damage to children and teens due to abuse and neglect are disgusting.
We let thousands of children bounce through ten or more foster care homes until they age out of the adoption system and are left with nobody.
We have a shameful infant mortality rate among other industrialized nations, showing that we care little to make sure we provide adequately for pregnant women.
Sure, you desperately want to protect these glowing, faultless infants, but the moment it pops out of the birth canal, what are you prepared to do?
What do you consider your responsibility, as a person who is against abortion, once it's born to that woman who doesn't want it?
What is your responsibility to the woman, when she suffers permenant disfigurement from the pregnancy, or dies from a complication that she didn't know about because she wasn't getting adequate pre-natal care?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-01-2006 3:16 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 300 (345805)
09-01-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 2:16 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
And I could unmarry myself through murder.
Or divorce. See, there's an alternative that gets you the same thing.
But there's no option for terminating a pregancy but abortion, because those terms are synonyms.
It sucks that, when you remove the fetus from the uterus, it dies. But how is that the fault of the mother? It's a sad but necessary consequence of the termination of the pregnancy. It's not "murder." It's a lot more like self-defense.
LOL! As if that fetus had any control over its own gestation. You seem to be implying that a fetus is willfuly and maliciously accosting his/her own mother.
It doesn't have any will or malicious intent. Neither does a dog when it attacks the mailman. But we put down dogs that attack people; so too does a mother have the right to put down an attacking zygote.
I mean, shouldn't the fact that you recognize that we're talking about something incapable of will or intent be a clue to you that what we're talking about doesn't have the same kinds of rights as full-fledged adults, or even children?
You say, 'birth,' but what does birth constitute?
I'm sorry, I thought you were the expert on delivery proceedures?
I assume that you can appreciate that if there is no real measure of right or wrong, least of all in natural occurances, that you can in no wise be upset at a fetus that develops the way nature intended it to.
I'm not "upset" about it. But doesn't that give me the same basis not to be upset when a woman makes a decision about who gets to live within her body?
With the way you portrayed gestation who would ever want to be pregnant?
Not me! Look, I'm not making this stuff up about pregnancy. You can look up the physiology yourself.
Crash, I'm not a very extreme guy. I'm sure to you it seems that way. But I see this as murder, okay?
Oh, really? 1 out of every 3 American women have committed murder? Like, killed a person? And, what? We should lock them up? Deliver the death penalty to 1 in 3 women?
You don't think you're an "extreme guy"? The more you talk about your position, the more extreme it appears.
Hey, I'm a moderate. I believe in a compromise. That compromise is this - people who want abortions can have them. People that don't don't have to have them. Seems pretty simple and fair, to me. If you're so opposed to abortions, how about you choose not to have any?
To me, its the same as you asking me to compromise with a terrorist
Uh-huh. One in three American women are terrorists. Not extreme, folks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:00 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-02-2006 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 247 of 300 (345814)
09-01-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 12:28 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
quote:
Golly-gosh, I always saw it as a symbiotic relationship between a mother and a child developed by an absolute natural occurance.
Does something that causes vomiting daily and being nearly constantly nauseous for a month sound like a "symbiotic" relationship to you?
How about something that gives you life-threatening high blood pressure or diabetes? Both of these conditions are fairly common.
Let's also not forget that during birth many babies have to be cut out of the woman because it's going to kill her otherwise.
I don't think you understand what "symbiosis" is.
Symbiosis is a mutually beneficial arrangement between two organisms.
Pregnancy would be more accurately described as a parasitic relationship.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 12:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Silent H, posted 09-02-2006 5:41 AM nator has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 300 (345832)
09-01-2006 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nator
09-01-2006 5:02 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
Most fertilized eggs, which by your definition are human and must be afforded the same rights as you and I, never implant.
Most fertilized eggs don't implant? Okay, and how have you deduced this information? However, even in the event that such a thing could be known, yes I think an attempt to save a fertilized fetus is a worthy endeavor. But one would first have to know whether or not they pregnant to begin with.
So, a fetus actually has, according to you, more rights than a woman, correct?
No, they have equal rights. Don't kill the mother, don't kill the baby.
As in, a fetus's right to take up residence in a woman's uterus always trumps those of a woman to retain her body autonomy, potentally permenantly disfiguring her body, exposing her to risks to her health, mental health, and her very life?
The fetus didn't will itself in the uterus. Try not to lost sight that it was the parents actions that got them in the situation to begin with. Secondly, I find the "my body, my choice," mantra to be little more than a diatribe. For starters, the fetus isn't apart of her body. Secondly, I find it ironic that a woman can opt for any reason whatsoever to engage in abortion, which is a surgical procedure, but she can't elect to have a hysterectomy for any and all reasons, even though her uterus really is apart of her body. If a womans reproductive rights are hers without imposition, without hindrance, then why can't she elect to have whatever procedure she wants?
I can tell that you are a man.
Are you being complimentary?
Do you think that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is some kind of walk in the park for a woman or a girl, physically or mentally?
No, I don't but I also don't think its a tragedy of all tragedies. I also wouldn't play down the actual procedure of abortion either, along with its future medical and mental risks. Unlike Planned Parenthood's claims that longterm sadness is "extremely rare," I must be one of those people to have met many of those rare individuals. Imagine the odds.
Are YOU goinf to pay the medical expenses? What about the funeral expenses if she dies? Are you going to support her other children if she is disabled or killed by this pregnancy?
What is my involvement? Am I supposed to married to this woman? If so, yes of course. I guess we could turn this around on you. If you told your friend that abortions are great and that they don't hurt, but tickle, and she ends up crippled, maimed, or dead are you going to pay for her injuries?
So, a woman is just a walking uterus to you, then, and only the death of that uterus should allow any consideration to the woman or girl at all.
If she gets to be a walking uterus then I get to be a walking pancreas. Deal? Um, I have no idea how you could have extrapolated that message from what I said. If there is no chance for the survival of both but there is a chance to keep at least one of them alive, then keep one of them alive as best you can. I hardly see how that makes women walking uteri.
The fetus's human rights trump the woman's every single time.
No, they have equal rights. But in your scenario the women has all of the rights and the fetus has zero.
It's so funny that you claimed to respect women's individual rights before.
I do care about a woman's individual rights. If she wants to have Shrimp Alfredo for dinner rather than Terriyaki Chicken, I say go for it. If she doesn't want to donate blood, that's her right not to. If she doesn't want to give anything to her brother in her will, so be it, its her money. If she wants to run over a homeless man I say go for.... Oh wait. No, you can't just do whatever you want. There are millions of choices you can make. Some of them are just plain crazy.
Let me flip the coin on you. Lets say that a man accidentally impregnated the woman, and neither of them wanted to concieve. However, after some time passes, all of those motherly predilictions start to bubble up and she decides to concieve. The boyfriend is outraged. He doesn't want a child. Isn't his choice not to care for or to pay for the expenses of this child? Men don't have the same rights as women? Men are just walking testicles? Men are forced to bear a responsibility they never asked for? What say you now?
Well, if not "fictitious", then intentionally vague so it would apply to other abrtion procedures. Oh, and they are not illegal in every state.
I don't care if we called it bobbing for apples. Whether or not we call it Partial Birth Abortion doesn't negate that an extremely disturbing "medical procedure" is taking place. As for the legality, obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't squalid. As for my reason for mentioning it, some people say that a fetus 'gets' to become a human being as soon as they pass through the birth canal. If that's the case then Partial Birth Abortion/Bobbing For Apples/Chasing Daisy's/Frolicking in a Meadow is a clear cut case of a vicious homicide.
For sure, at birth.
Then you implicate yourself.
But before that, it's a sliding scale. A bundle of cells isn't a person, for example. A fetus that has no self-awareness and no consciousness also isn't a person.
Well, to be sure, you are a bundle of cells too. As for self-awareness, what are you referring to? Fetus are aware of themselves, as if it means anything. If I killed you in your sleep would it really matter to your family, other than perhaps then minor consolation that you didn't suffer?
I know you right wingers don't like ambiguity, but there it is.
"There" what is?
And, if you respected the rights of women, you wouldn't be assuming some right to meddle in our personal medical or reproductive business.
And if you respected the right of little babies you wouldn't advocate their murder. Which is worse Shrafster-- Murder or holding someone accountable for murder?
So, you're a pacifist, opposed to all war and also the death penalty?
No I'm not a pacifist, yes I'm against war, however, I know that it is an unfortunate neccesity until Messiah comes back and we can beat our weapons into plowshares, and no I don't agree with the death penalty.
My husband is a person. A several week old fetus is not aware of anything, has no consciousness. They are not comparable.
What about a several month old fetus?
...except when they have a fertilized egg inside of them, and then you consider that fertilized egg's rights to trump those of women.
No, they have equal rights.
quote:
Yes, I do but is that supposed to make tha act all peachy?
What act?
This act
Be sure to watch the whole video. I wouldn't want you to support amything you don't completely understand.
We should be teaching age-appropriate sexual health K-12.
You want to talk to Kindergartners about sex? Do you have children? Do you understand the mentality of that age bracket? My daughter will be starting 2nd grade in a few days and she does not yet have the understanding on sex. If I were to give her some of the details on how babies are made and the mechanism used to produce one, she'd probably be completely bewildered. Having said all that, there is a time in the not-so-distant future when I will discuss this with her. And since you're on a big kick for personal rights, it is not the job of an elementary school to be teaching my kids a single thing on sex because its inappropriate. This is the kind of nonsense that exacerbates the problem. I'll kindly ask you to look at Sweden as a classic example that incessantly talking about sex doesn't mitigate the chances of unwanted pregnancy, it only interests the kids all the more. I'll also kindly ask you to look at the rate of unwanted pregnancies of the 40's and 50's when talking about sex in school was unheard of. Were the rates through the roof? No. Are they now because that's all that people talk about? Yep. The problem is with themselves. They are just too obtuse and too wrapped up in their convoluted pop-pyscholoy world to notice.
And you do know that abstinence-only programs don't work, and actually lead to teens being more likely to engage in anal and oral sex, don't you?
LOL! No, I sure didn't. How many abstinence-only programs are allowed through the doors? I mean, who knows whether or not it would work. No one talks about it with enough frequency. Look what happened with the anti-smoking campaign. I'll be the first to admit it, I was floored that it actually worked. The abstinence thing, I'll also admit, that I was very skeptical. When I was in high school everybody smoked. There was still that unspoken peer pressure thing very much present. Now, kids look down on you if you smoke. It works. Advertising works. It just takes a little dedication.
They do delay teens choosing to have intercourse by about a year, but they do not prevent it. Also, those teens are less likely to use contraception or take safer sex precautions because they don't have the knowledge or the tools to do so.
Well, I don't know where you have garnered your opinion from but maybe you can tell where you heard this.
I thought you goal was reducing abortion? Now you seem to be saying that your goal is keeping those in the groups most at risk ignorant of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
I have no problem with contraceptives. But if you give kids the go ahead to have sex then you're just going to have another 1960-70's era of unmitigated sex, where its going to take a deadly disease, like AIDS, to make people get serious about it.
Does that seem a smart way to go about things if reducing unwanted pregnancy was your goal?
My ultimate goal is the Great Commission. My goal for sexuality is that people respect what God instilled and to enjoy the benefits of taking His advice on it and to avoid the pitfalls of disregarding it.
quote:
Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that a several week-old fetus is the same as a walking-talking independent adult?
quote:
:To answer your question better, yes I would expect that.
That's stupid. Sorry, but it is.
Well, you are afforded your opinion per the Constitution.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 5:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 259 by nator, posted 09-02-2006 7:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 249 of 300 (345854)
09-01-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 7:34 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
I'll also kindly ask you to look at the rate of unwanted pregnancies of the 40's and 50's when talking about sex in school was unheard of. Were the rates through the roof? No. Are they now because that's all that people talk about? Yep.
How could that possibly be compared? How would we measure "unwanted pregancies" in any meaningful way in a time before the restrictions on abortion were eased?
The truth is actually pretty simple - once we started educating teens about sex, teenage birthrates declined, STD's declined, everybody got healthier and smarter about sex.
And you want to roll that back? Because what, you think teenagers won't figure out how to have sex without some kind of instruction manual? Trust me, they get the hang of it pretty quickly no matter what you tell or don't tell them. What they won't know anything about is how to use the technologies we've developed to make sex safer. Those do require instructions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 7:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 250 of 300 (345918)
09-02-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by nator
09-01-2006 5:02 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
For an exact moment? Sorry, life doesn't work like that. This is a gray area.
You need to elaborate on this. You acknowledge a gray area? An area of doubt in your mind. Where does it begin and end for you. You have avoided my questions thus far out of inconvenience. I ask again for your honesty.
Abstinece-only is an abject failure.
so is the falicy of contraception.
Yes. But fetuses are not children.
that is your offical position then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 5:02 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Silent H, posted 09-02-2006 5:48 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 300 (345929)
09-02-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
09-01-2006 5:58 PM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
Or divorce. See, there's an alternative that gets you the same thing.
Because killing your wife and killing your fetus are most closely similar descriptive terms than divorce is. Actually, its completely synonymous, whereas 'divorce' factors no where in that.
But there's no option for terminating a pregancy but abortion, because those terms are synonyms.
What's wrong with adoption? Birth mother gets to be free from responsibility, adopting parents get the bundle of joy they always wanted, and baby gets to live. All parties win in this scenario. In the abortion scenario only the prospective mother wins. What's wrong with adoption?
It sucks that, when you remove the fetus from the uterus, it dies. But how is that the fault of the mother? It's a sad but necessary consequence of the termination of the pregnancy. It's not "murder." It's a lot more like self-defense.
As for self-defense, I wasn't an invader to my mother, my wife wasn't an invader to hers, my kids weren't an invader to my wife, apparently everyone's mothers on EvC weren't invaders on their mothers. I think one has to really stretch the boundaries of truth to make abortion seem okay.
Hypothetical question: If you conducted an abortion and you are disembodying the fetus and dismembered limbs are coming out, suppose you yanked real hard and the fetus came out all at once. Suppose the head and torso were in still intact and you could see their face. Would you change your mind if you could see pain on their face or would you feel no emotion in the act, just a sterilization process?
It doesn't have any will or malicious intent. Neither does a dog when it attacks the mailman. But we put down dogs that attack people; so too does a mother have the right to put down an attacking zygote.
Zygotes don't attack, whatsoever. They just sit there and exist. Its the mothers body, her own hormones, in a natural occurance, that triggers these responses in her body.
I mean, shouldn't the fact that you recognize that we're talking about something incapable of will or intent be a clue to you that what we're talking about doesn't have the same kinds of rights as full-fledged adults, or even children?
That's absurd. Does a 4 month old baby have any ill-intent? According to you he/she has just as much rights as anyone else, as well they should.
I'm sorry, I thought you were the expert on delivery proceedures?
No, you made it clear for me that I know nothing about pregnancy, least of all, the delivery. Therefore, I have to ask you on your advice. So, what constitutes birth to you?
I'm not "upset" about it. But doesn't that give me the same basis not to be upset when a woman makes a decision about who gets to live within her body?
Look, the prospective mother is going to do whatever it is she is going to do. If she is dead set on destroying the baby she will find a way to do destroy him/her. But let that be on her own conscience until she gives that to God in earnest. Here's what I believe about the majority of proponents of pro-choice. They don't really understand what abortion entails. They also don't really know what a fetus is. See, the pro-choice movement wants to illicit sympathy to cover up a more insidious role. They paint a picture of nobility and cast doubt in the mind of the young girl who is still indecided. They use dehumanizing terms to disassociate themselves from what a fetus actually is-- a defenseless baby.
Just from talking to people on the subject, I'm fully convinced that most people really just don't get it. They are actually under the impression that a fetus is just a blob of well-formed molecules, the collocation of atoms in a specific pattern, and so on. They also don't understand very well how gruesome the act is. They often know nothing of the methods used. Its important to educate them on what abortion really is. But until they see it with their own eyes, they can't understand the very thing they are against.
Not me! Look, I'm not making this stuff up about pregnancy. You can look up the physiology yourself.
You are completely embellishing to turn a fetus into the Gestapo.
Oh, really? 1 out of every 3 American women have committed murder? Like, killed a person? And, what? We should lock them up? Deliver the death penalty to 1 in 3 women?
What would you do to a person in a murder-for-hire investigation found guilty? Draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying this is any easy debate with easy answers. But surely you realize this is taboo for a reason. People don't come up to pregnant women and ask if its a boy or a girl because they think the baby won't survive. People don't ask pregnant women how old their fetus is, they want to know how how far along their baby is. If a man assualts a pregnant woman and she miscarries, that man isn't charged with simple assault, he's charged with murder. If he kills a pregnant woman, he's charged with double-murder. Why do you think that is? Its because a baby resides in the mother's womb. As for criminality, it seems as long as a doctor is doing it, it isn't murder, right? This is freaky Nazi Germany type stuff. I can't believe these doctors can do this for a living and not see a baby's face.
You don't think you're an "extreme guy"? The more you talk about your position, the more extreme it appears.
Well, you know when it comes to the murder of an innocent child I tend not to ride the fence. Call me a dangerous maverick if you will.
Hey, I'm a moderate. I believe in a compromise. That compromise is this - people who want abortions can have them. People that don't don't have to have them. Seems pretty simple and fair, to me. If you're so opposed to abortions, how about you choose not to have any?
They can have them. They are protected by US law, shocking as that is. And even if it were illegal it wouldn't stop people who wanted them from having them. But woe to me for not speaking out against that which I know is wrong.
Uh-huh. One in three American women are terrorists. Not extreme, folks!
Killing innocent babies. Not extreme, folks! He's a moderate, see?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2006 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 252 of 300 (345971)
09-02-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by nator
09-01-2006 6:32 PM


Actual Study on Mental Health and Abortion
Does something that causes vomiting daily and being nearly constantly nauseous for a month sound like a "symbiotic" relationship to you?
That sounds like an adjustment to a new situation. It would not suggest any more or less of a symbiotic relationship.
I get your point that the nature of the relationship seems "parasitic" in the sense that the fetus is draining the resources of the woman, without bringing something back directly. They are not equally sharing support for each other. And I certainly get that a woman who does not want a child will view it as alien and parasitic.
That said, it is not truly parasitic which would be an external organism feeding off another entity to prolong its own individual life. Pregnancy is a natural part of human life and is a product of its own organs. And there is a form of symbiosis going on. While the woman provides nutrients for proper development, the child provides an extension of life for the woman. At the very least the passing on of her dna.
Also, for women that have children when they are younger there is an added protection against breast cancer.
I want to call your attention to my last post regarding a very recent study on the mental health effects of abortion. Even if you don't want to deal with a post from me, you'll eventually have to face the fact that counterevidence is mounting and it is in favor of 2's assertions. Just because something is NOT recognized as a problem right now does not mean it will always stay that way.
Also, your argument on significance of numbers also needs clarification. Ignoring my posts will not make the issue go away.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 6:32 PM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 253 of 300 (345972)
09-02-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-02-2006 12:22 AM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
You have avoided my questions thus far out of inconvenience. I ask again for your honesty.
I'm getting the same feeling, she appears to keep ducking your solid points and sticking to the weak ones.
In case you missed it in post 236 I have provided more than sufficient evidence to back up your claim against schraf regarding mental health effects of abortion. It not only provides positive evidence for your position, it seriously calls her own claims into question.
If you ever get back to the issue of evidence for mental health, which she claimed was the only "ontopic" discussion anyway, please feel free to pick up my post and use it. It appears she is unwilling to acknowledge my posts, so at least maybe you can get some mileage out of it.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-02-2006 12:22 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 09-02-2006 1:30 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 258 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-02-2006 4:10 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 254 of 300 (346032)
09-02-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:00 AM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
Because killing your wife and killing your fetus are most closely similar descriptive terms than divorce is.
Your wife doesn't die when you cut her off from your checking account. But the fetus only dies because that one single environment is the only place where it can live.
That's tragic, but how is that the mother's fault? You don't have to kill your wife to not be married to her anymore. And if it were possible to transplant fetuses, I'd support that in lieu of abortion wherever possible.
But it isn't. There's no way to terminate a pregancy where the fetus doesn't die. How is that the mother's fault?
What's wrong with adoption?
Nothing, but it isn't the termination of pregnancy. You still go through the pregnancy and the delivery. It's not a symmetric alternative to abortion, it's something completely different.
As for self-defense, I wasn't an invader to my mother, my wife wasn't an invader to hers, my kids weren't an invader to my wife, apparently everyone's mothers on EvC weren't invaders on their mothers.
Those were wanted pregancies. You were invited and allowed to stay. Bully for you, I guess.
How is that relevant in the least to what we're discussing, which is women who have fetuses growing within them that they do not want there?
If you conducted an abortion and you are disembodying the fetus and dismembered limbs are coming out, suppose you yanked real hard and the fetus came out all at once. Suppose the head and torso were in still intact and you could see their face.
You've just got no idea of what we're talking about here, do you? This isn't anything close to what most abortions are like. Typically, in an abortion, the cervyx is dialated and a tool is used to scrape the inside of the uterus. What comes out isn't arms and legs. There's more mass to the placenta at that point than to the fetus. If you didn't know what a fetus at that stage looked like, you would never recognize it amongst the placental mass.
Does a 4 month old baby have any ill-intent?
No. But a 4-month old baby doesn't require one specific uterus to survive. What it requires can be provided by any adult, so what would be the sense in killing it? It's needless.
It's unfortunate that there's no way to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't kill the fetus. That's a sad thing, don't get me wrong.
But how is that the mother's fault?
So, what constitutes birth to you?
You were born, obviously. You went through it. Somehow everybody, including the law, recognizes birth when it happens, except for you, apparently. How is it that you can be unclear on what this process is?
If she is dead set on destroying the baby she will find a way to do destroy him/her.
Fair enough. I believe that's true, as well. Don't you think it's maybe better that that happens in a hospital room with doctors, rather than in the back alley of some Mexican hellhole with a fucking coathanger?
Boy, I do. Certainly the law should try to prevent the things that society rejects. But the law can't prevent what society has already accepted. That's why laws against downloading music always fail - people want to do it anyway. That's why laws against abortion didn't work when they were tried, too - people got abortions anyway. Why bother trying to make illegal what people are going to do anyway? Seems like a waste of time, to me.
Here's what I believe about the majority of proponents of pro-choice. They don't really understand what abortion entails.
But anyone can see that you're the one who doesn't know what it entails. Anybody who talks about "partial-birth abortion", which is a mythical, not a medical, proceedure, simply doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. They have no knowledge of abortion from a medical perspective - only from the scaremongering, bloody-fetus perspective of the abortion foes, who obviously have a vested interest in making the process appear as gory and horrible as possible.
But surely you realize this is taboo for a reason.
What is taboo? Abortion is legal in all 50 states, just as it was legal in all 13 colonies at the beginning of this nation. There was a breif period there in the middle where you couldn't have an abortion legally in the US, but even during that time, people sought to terminate their pregnancies.
People have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of time. Either naturally, via their own bodies, or intentionally, via drugs or proceedures. The vast majority of human pregnancies are spontaenously aborted. There's nothing more natural than abortion, seems like. Why do you think it's so hard for women to get pregnant? Because most of the time, even if fertilization is successful, the zygote is aborted.
If a man assualts a pregnant woman and she miscarries, that man isn't charged with simple assault, he's charged with murder.
Not in every state. And the only reason those laws exist in the first place is to provide a basis for exactly the argument you just made.
Isn't that a sad thing? How many men are serving unjustified murder sentences because they've been used as legislative dupes, just so people like you can make disingenuous arguments on internet forums. It's really amazing the depths to which abortion foes will sink - there's absolutely no one they won't screw, just to ensure that women have no right to determine whether or not another person gets to live in their body.
But woe to me for not speaking out against that which I know is wrong.
Speak out all you like. Be prepared to be - gasp! - disagreed with!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:00 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2006 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 255 of 300 (346033)
09-02-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Silent H
09-02-2006 5:48 AM


Re: studies on harm and policies of protection
Holmes
Just a note concerning message 236. Was it established that the depression and other mental illnesses were a result of the abortion or were they the result of societal pressure from the controversy of abortion upon these women?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Silent H, posted 09-02-2006 5:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Silent H, posted 09-02-2006 1:52 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024