Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   anti-abortion folks still get abortions
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 301 (298277)
03-26-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by riVeRraT
03-26-2006 7:42 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
you are aware that exposure to semen reduces depression in women right?
the laws in the old testament were about women being property and men wanting tight playthings to marry. the purity idea came from the greeks who had sex with little boys.
all psychological and sociological evidence supports that a healthy, non-abusive, active sex life contributes to all kinds of happy things. no sex results in overly-high expectations, fairy tales, stress, depression, unstable cycles, and all sorts of issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by riVeRraT, posted 03-26-2006 7:42 AM riVeRraT has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 62 of 301 (298278)
03-26-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
03-26-2006 1:25 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
it takes two to be on birth control. why should i be the only one having my hormones messed with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 1:25 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 63 of 301 (298295)
03-26-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by redseal
03-25-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
quote:
Those who proclaim abortion to be wrong, yet "avail themselves" abortions are modern-day Pharisees. Their lack of a moral back-bone and insincere proclamations puts them squarely amongst the other murderers.
Would you advocate sending them to the electric chair, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by redseal, posted 03-25-2006 6:55 PM redseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by redseal, posted 03-27-2006 4:40 AM nator has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 301 (298297)
03-26-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by redseal
03-25-2006 6:55 PM


quote:
Their lack of a moral back-bone and insincere proclamations puts them squarely amongst the other murderers.
Who's to say that these people are insincere? It could be that these people really do sincerely believe that they not morally culpable of the offenses of which they are accusing others. People are complex entities, and from what I have observed in my short life is that people are capable of great leaps of rationalization and ad hoc reasoning, especially where their self-interest is concerned.
Edited to get rid of the inappropriate subtitle.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 26-Mar-2006 04:43 PM

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by redseal, posted 03-25-2006 6:55 PM redseal has not replied

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


Message 65 of 301 (298301)
03-26-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by riVeRraT
03-25-2006 10:48 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
quote:
Nobody hates a hypocrite more than me. But I still wouldn't use it to argue a point.
Since the article doesn't do that, I am not sure why you keep implying that it does.
quote:
But why is it I hear so much more about abortion, than help for unwanted pregnancies,
Because there is a very vocal, radical religious minority that is hell-bent upon framing the debate that way.
It is because these people are attacking our rights for no other reason than their religious fanatacism and their desire to invade my life and force me to follow their religious morals.
Go to the Planned Parenthood website, rat, if you want the truth about the pro-choice movement. Read through the "Health Info", "Education" and "International" sections if you want to know what they are doing to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Then, go to the website for the National Right to Life movement and see how much they are doing to promote contraception, sexual health and responsibility education, and other tried and true methods for recucing unwanted pregnancy.
The comparison is shocking, I assure you.
quote:
or programs to encourage kids NOT to have sex. Having sex at a young age messes up your life, in more ways than one.
Evidence for this claim?
I think that the biggest determinant of having sex at a young age being detrimental is the guilt and shame and "dirtyness" associated with it in certain cultures, such as our own.
In other cultures where children are taught that sex is natural and normal and that respect for others and being responsible for oneself and one's partners is part and parcel of having sex, I don't think you're going to find that sex at a young age "messes up" many people.
quote:
Unfortunatly our society glorifies it, and it's solution is to have abortions, way to go.
No, rat.
Many people in our society, namely the pro-choice supporters, believe the solution is to educate children about sexual health and responsible sex ual behavior, and to make contraception widely available and free or inexpensive.
That way, kids can make informed, responsible choices regarding if they want to have sex, and if they do, how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion.
Anti-choice policies result in more unwanted pregnancy, not less.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-26-2006 12:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2006 10:48 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2006 2:11 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 66 of 301 (298308)
03-26-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by redseal
03-25-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
redseal
Their lack of a moral back-bone and insincere proclamations puts them squarely amongst the other murderers
Are you somehow an "expert" on "moral backbone" that you may entice us with this display of superior compassion and humilty? You, no doubt, are morally pure and capable of judgement in these issues.
Perhaps we should have you present to us a run down of your opinions and then we could humbly bow to their truth,inspirational power and insight?
And then we could move on to dealing with real life hmmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by redseal, posted 03-25-2006 6:55 PM redseal has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 67 of 301 (298340)
03-26-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nator
03-26-2006 11:58 AM


hypocrisy and morality
I was originally not going to post, but a series of inconsistent replies (not necessarily by you) and reading more from the author of the cited article, has sort of prompted me into saying something.
First things first. Despite being 100% for abortion rights, I found the cited article rather poorly written, and essentially base propaganda. The author appears to be just that, a propagandist. I'm not sure why it was found to be of note.
IF these anecdotes are real, then it points to some definite measure of hypocrisy with specific individuals. That's a surprise? Some people can be hypocrites? Yes, so can AA people. More insulting to my sensitivities was the author's attempts to pad her article. Did no one else notice the similarities between sets of anecdotes? One might start wondering if in fact any of these are factual rather than urban myths.
Then there were the studies. In addition to the problem of apparently conflicting measurements, there was an immense problem with equivocation (or at least ambiguity). Stats on religious identity is presented as if this supports the anecdotal picture she was painting. But it doesn't. We cannot know what those people meant by their religious identification, and whether it was meant to imply agreement on all items held by those denominations. For example I could very well be Catholic but believe abortion is okay.
Neither were the stats on thinking whether abortion was immoral, or disagreeing that "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." Particularly that last statement is so broad I am sure some who are pro choice, would not necessarily agree with it. But lets address the morality question. People definitely do things they believe are immoral, if/when they feel realities in life make it the best decision beyond moral questions. For example a poor, starving person is likely to steal despite maintaining a moral position against theft.
Desperation makes strange bedfellows.
If she was wanting to make her point her stats needed to be much more accurate to the specific claim she is making. In fact it would have been much more important to find out how many people against abortion are having abortions. It really wouldn't mean anything if 30% of all abortions are for those opposed to it, when only 3% of those opposed to abortion are having them. She supplied nothing about this.
Some people apparently may be hypocrites, or take advantage of a freedom when available, which they would rather not have as a freedom in general. I suppose another interesting stat is how many of them would not have had abortions if it had not been free. That could explain their duplicity, that they know they are weak and want to impose social pressures to gain traction on a decision. That's much like the gambling addicts against legalized gambling, the drug addicts against drug legalization, etc.
I think that the biggest determinant of having sex at a young age being detrimental is the guilt and shame and "dirtyness" associated with it in certain cultures, such as our own. In other cultures where children are taught that sex is natural and normal and that respect for others and being responsible for oneself and one's partners is part and parcel of having sex, I don't think you're going to find that sex at a young age "messes up" many people.
Well I am glad to see you saying this, but it is not true that this attitude is part of all prochoice or sex-ed materials/instruction. Indeed there is a great hypocrisy on this score across prochoice and sex-ed advocates. Indeed you can see it going on right within this thread. You have people arguing how good sex is for people, and bad that people don't, but its good that people have sex ed, because it results in people not having sex.
The sexual moral hypocrisy of Xians is pretty much stretched over both sides here.
That way, kids can make informed, responsible choices regarding if they want to have sex, and if they do, how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion.
Not to press this point, but you had in the past specifically argued that this was not possible. This is certainly one of the hypocrisies within the sex-ed prochoice crowd. Children should be educated so that they can make informed decisions, and given access to items to make sex safe, yet at the same time they are not supposed to actually engage in such activity and if they do they will be punished for doing so, and often adults are for having allowed for such activity to take place (including supplying protection), and most certainly they are for engaging in such behavior with a kid, because no kid can ever be thought to be "informed".
There really is less hypocrisy in religious proscriptions against an activity, and then not aiding people (in this case kids) in that activity, even if it means those people might suffer if/when they engage in that activity. That sort of goes along with the idea that you can't argue abortion should be legalized because it will mean less women will be hurt while engaging in it. There is no hypocrisy to say one does not care if more women are getting hurt doing something they are not supposed to be doing, which ironically happens to be (to their eyes) trying to harm another person. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy to be seen on the PC side, when such arguments are used.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 11:58 AM nator has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 301 (298378)
03-26-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
03-26-2006 9:37 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
What leads you to believe that's an erroneous assumption? I mean, the way it is now, men have three options - permanent vascetomy, condoms that interfere with sexual sensation or may trigger latex allergies, or rely on his partner's responsibility in following a birth control regimen.
I hate - hate - to see men so casually dismiss the idea of male birth control. What, you don't think men deserve reproductive choice?
i was trying to be funny. nevermind.
what leads me to believe that guys would not responsible? other than being a guy myself? like i said, it takes two. if the woman is not being responsible, what makes you think the man would be?
but yes, actually, it would be a good idea, because every little bit helps. and it's better to double up on birthcontrol choices anyways. better safe than pregnant.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-26-2006 04:55 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 9:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 5:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 69 of 301 (298380)
03-26-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
03-26-2006 4:55 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
what leads me to believe that guys would not responsible? other than being a guy myself? like i said, it takes two. if the woman is not being responsible, what makes you think the man would be?
I guess I don't understand this line of argumentation. What do the people who aren't responsible have to do with the men who want some kind of transparent birth control? And what does the woman have to do with it?
Like I said I'm simply not following what you're trying to say, here. Men who aren't responsible won't bother with birth control at all. Men who do want better birth control are, by definition, more responsible. I don't see how irresponsible men have anything to do with it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 4:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 70 of 301 (298387)
03-26-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by riVeRraT
03-25-2006 10:48 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
I used to have some hangover from boyhood notions that war was a gallent, heroic affair. Me, I saw myself as a Focke Wulf 190 pilot, defending the motherland (and thereby protecting to-die-for Pauline O'Connor who lived up the road in No. 42) from the bestial daylight attacks of the enemy (I know the Nazis were wrong now but then the Krauts made the most beautiful aeroplanes)
That was until I saw the opening 20 mins or so of Saving Private Ryan and got a glimpse of what war was actually about. Not so as to disturb the discussion but to remind what is actually being discussed here.
From rR's link a number of posts ago. This is one of a number of procedures which is used depending on the stage of the abortion.
quote:
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): within 13 to 24 weeks after LMP
This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. Because the developing fetus doubles in size between the thirteenth and fourteenth weeks of pregnancy, the body of the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting laminaria a day or two before the abortion. After opening the cervix, the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus' skull is crushed to ease removal.
http://www.optionline.org/abortion.html
Do people really see the crushing of a foetus' skull roughly along the same lines as they do a mousetrap hammer popping the eyes out of the sockets of those pesky mice that invade the house every fall?
For my own part, I think the movement towards trying to limit people to sex within the confines of marriage is a misguided one and would be a demonstration of Christians (if that is what they indeed are) getting it totally arse about face. It reeks of the same self-righteousness of those who would hang homosexuals up by the testicles.
What a world....
This message has been edited by iano, 26-Mar-2006 10:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2006 10:48 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 6:48 PM iano has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 301 (298397)
03-26-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
03-26-2006 5:25 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
crash, i know. i'm kidding.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-26-2006 06:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 5:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2006 6:49 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 72 of 301 (298408)
03-26-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
03-26-2006 5:52 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
Do people really see the crushing of a foetus' skull roughly along the same lines as they do a mousetrap hammer popping the eyes out of the sockets of those pesky mice that invade the house every fall?
Yes. Why shouldn't I? What causes you to believe that the fetus has any more human self-awareness than the mouse? Or that an unwanted fetus has any more right to live in someone's body than mice have a right to live in someone's house?
What your quote fails to mention, by the way, is that D&E is rarely used. It's rarely necessary when abortions can be chemically induced. The few times that D&E is necessary is when the mother's health is directly threatened or when legal obstructions to abortion delay her access to the procedure. That's right - as awful as they find the procedure, anti-abortion groups have caused far more D&E abortions than they have prevented. How's that for ironic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 03-26-2006 5:52 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 73 of 301 (298409)
03-26-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
03-26-2006 6:12 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
Well, if you say so.
A lot of people aren't kidding, though, and honestly this is something its time we stopped joking around about. Every pharmaceutical company has a male birth control formula that works, but not a single one of them has put anything forward into FDA trials because they don't believe they have a product that anyone will buy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 6:12 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 03-26-2006 7:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 74 of 301 (298411)
03-26-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
03-26-2006 8:45 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
Accordign to you it is worse to say that they are supporting propaganda that they do not truly believe than to suggest that they do not think of child urder as a horrible crime or to say that they are prepared to commit horrible crimes themselves. Do you really beleive that ?o
Na, both are bad.
Who are we to judge why they did what they did, and it's all based on some survey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2006 8:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2006 1:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 75 of 301 (298412)
03-26-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
03-26-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
You stoned the girl to death because of those property issues, not because of her base immorality. Read Leviticus.
I am not an expert on Leviticus, but I do know that most people who read it, would not understand it, because the times were completely different. It is easy to think how atrocious things were, when in fact they might not have been. It's all relative.
You can't take bits and pieces of it, and comment on it, unless you have a full understanding of what, why, when, who, and how. Then we just start taking things out of context, something we all could do very easily.
The point was/is, that virginity holds a certain value, many good s things come with it, and if you watch MTV lately, you'll see that our society does not think so. Teens are under great pressure to have sex, and they shouldn't be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 03-26-2006 9:33 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 8:32 PM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024