Limits on Abortion

quote:

---

Funny, but Rob doesn't even understand what I say half the time.

---

I doubt that Rob understands what he writes half the time. Oh shit! Did I hit "Submit Reply"?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Apparently, no one has figured it out. If you know the answer, why is this question even still a question? Well, what do you think in this situation, and what conclusion have you reached?

What I think should be obvious, because I've told you and others in several posts, now. I guess you haven't been paying attention.Regardless - my views are already on the record. It's your answer to the question that I want. There's four of you on this thread who I've posed the question to - you, NJ, Petro, and Iano. Surely one out of four of you can answer a simple question about a position that you claim to support?

I'm not big on immanence at the best of times. There's potential for a life of misery too.Every time we turn a corner, we miss out on the potential of the other direction. Isn't it more important to make the best decisions we can and once made, to make the best of those decisions? I'm sorta opposed to abortions in general - but that doesn't give me the right to make the decision for somebody else. (I'm sorta opposed to vanilla ice cream, but not to the point of banning it.)Wasn't the development of American democracy based on the idea that the people directly involved in a situation are best equiped to make the decisions? Religious teaching has nothing to do with it. Sometimes, you have to think for yourself.Instead of telling somebody not to have an abortion, tell her you want to adopt the baby. It's not about being opposed. It's about offering an alternative. You have no right to be opposed to abortion unless you're willing to adopt the babies yourself.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It is not so much that we don't know. It is that there is no sensible biological answer to this question.
For convenience, moral comfort and practical legislation we need definite cutoff points. BUT a natural biological definite cutoff point just does not exist.
Human and non-human, life and non-life biological cutoff points do not exist in the way that are required here.Taken to it's logical conclusion the whole pro life stance does end up with the every sperm and every egg is sacred (to paraphrase Monty Python) which is obviously impractical and pointless.So all we can do is accept that our decisions are arbitary and decide what our false and arbitary cutoff point will be.You have decided that this lies at some indefinite point after the sperm and egg have hooked up but this could just as arbitarily have been chosen well before that event or, (as with the pro choicers) much later.It is all arbitary. Including your own cutoff point. As stated earlier I too adhere to the independent existence concept (to which Raz pointed out some inconsistencies)
BUT I know it is an arbitary cutoff point (like all others) and that there are going to be potential inconsistencies regards adult humans who are dependent on life support etc.
I accept these inconsistencies as I know they are inevitable with arbitary cutoff points no matter how rational they may be.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, let the record show, I have never said that I am NOT pro-choice, but I will say I am fundementally, theoretically, idealistically pro-life, and I would try to spread this ideal enoguh to hope that it would catch on, and at least that some people would seek help and alternatives to abortion, and that women in general would not feel that sex made them worthwhile. Being a woman, I am absolutely positively sure that men do consider an unyielding partner 'cold, undesirable, prudish, scared' etc. I think that this is wrong, and I do not blame all men, but in my experience it is a real trait of many men. Like I said, I have no idea where the issue is in the questions being asked here. I need more stats or info. All I know, is that the clinics and hospitals that I have attended, run by the Fransiscans of St Mary Medical Center, have signs EVERYWHERE, in the bathroom, in the offices, in the waiting rooms, stating that any child will be adopted and cared for NO QUESTIONS ASKED even if it is just left outside the building. The staff ask many questions to determine if the mother is ok with the pregnancy, both before and after the delivery, they provide free medical care, free day care, free diapers and clothes, etc, free pediatrics, and WIC programs, as well as counseling for prevention of future pregnancies if they are not deisred, depression, everything.

Yes, I understand. It is ALL arbitrary. The logical thing as far as religion teaches, is 'don't mess with it'. But that is still not possible entirely. When it comes to end-of-life issues, obviously there is as much confusion about what God would want...a 'natural' death, or a 'saved' life, so like I said, technology has brought us some very big choices that were just not there when we had no means of preserving life artificially, or creating it. Abortion, for example, could be much more wrong when we had no idea how a baby developes, now, we have all of these arbitrary positions based on our information.

We're not talking about institutions here, we're talking about individuals. Institutions don't adopt babies, individuals do.And the fact is that no matter what the Fransiscans say, there are already lots of babies that don't get adopted. If thousands or millions of abortions were prevented, there would be thousands or millions more babies who were not adopted.I'll say it again: no individual has a right to speak out against abortion unless he/she has already stretched his/her resources to the maximum helping to take care of all that "potential".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Then you oppose contraception on logical religious (not two words I put together often) grounds I assume?
Contraception surely constitutes 'messing with it' in this context?If it is all arbitrary then you accept that your cutoff point regards abortion is as arbitrary as Crash's?

Everybody knows, including young children, how babies are made. We all know what contraceptives are. We all know about venereal diseases. We all know about it and we can't feign ignorance, especially when the majority of women having abortions is between 19-24 years old. Some people opt not to take it very seriously. I'm not sure what else we can do other than impress upon the importance of not allowing hormones to supersede clear and rational choices.What would you do to ameliorate the amount of abortions?

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

Really? Let's try another little test (that you'll be sure to ignore, doubtless. Still waiting for you to put your embryology degree to good use a few posts back, NJ.)You're using Ortho-Cyclen. You wake up one morning and realize you forgot to take your pill yesterday. What do you do? Is it necessary to use a "backup" means of contraception, or are you still protected from pregnancy?If you had to look up the answers to these questions, or your reply is simply the smug, ignorant moralizing that typeifies abstinence promoters, then that kind of shoots down your whole point that every human being is born with perfect knowledge of every contraceptive technology, now doesn't it?Honestly NJ I wonder if you even think about the things you say before you say them.

Correct, and still not easy. See, we have all of this technology and knowledge...Catholics are taught the Natural Family Planning method, and well, coitus interuptus comes into play...and this is all 'messing' to an extent. There is nothing really for it except to keep pushing for a better world where abstinance can be practiced in lieu of a desire for children...which may sound rude, but I mean in the case of women who are having sex without a partner who will 'stick around' so to speak, where there are financial opportunities and support available from parents and others, for girls who are afraid to take on a pregnancy alone...many things are vital.I can say that christianity is pushing for a world where folks are married, established, commited, etc before any sexual activiety takes place, and where no one would be raped as well. A perfect world. Christians do not want to alleviate one problem by relaxing the ideal, but the world is just not ideal, is it? In that sense, I am pro-choice, but again, idealistically, I am pro-life.

At least you are consistent.However (well you must have known there would be one) - Surely the trouble with the 'not messing with it' philosophy is that unless you take everything natural as good (disease, illness etc. etc.) there are still arbitrary (that word again) decisions that need to be made as to when to intervene in nature and when not to.We both agree that a liver transplant is a good thing if it alleviates suffering.
I believe that an abortion is equally justified for the same reasons.Both are 'messing with it' as you put it.Therefore your opposition to abortion is based on two arbitrary decisions
1) When you decide that a human life is a human life
2) When you decide that intervention in nature to alleviate suffering is appropriate and when it is notPro choicers are making equally valid but different arbitrary decisions about the same things. All the evidence suggests that you will be fighting a losing battle against human nature and it's most ingrained needs and desires. Is there any evidence at all for any such society ever existing anywhere ever?

Then you lost in the US -

quote:

---

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents
had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age
44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who
had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained
until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts
of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital
sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had
premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

---

I love the part that those who abstained by 20 81% had premarital sex by 44.

quote:

---

Almost all Americans have sex before marrying. These findings
argue for education and interventions that provide the skills and information
people need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases once they become sexually active, regardless of marital
status.

---

Trends in Premarital Sex in the
United States, 1954-2003 Added by edit you my have to google Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003 to read the reportAnd on a ironic point- christians preach abstinence before marriage and make up here in the US 77% of the population ( around 159 million) that means a lot of christians can be considered hypocrites. link on religious affilation in the US-RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION IN THE U.S.Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.

---

six(sic)six

quote:

---

Apparently, no one has figured it out. If you know the answer, why is this question even still a question?

---

Ana, you are far too intellignet for this response.You show all the signs of mere coyness.