Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 166 of 230 (388031)
03-04-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
03-03-2007 11:59 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Crashfrog writes:
Look, I can read, Ana. Your posts are very clear. When people talk about "selfish women", that's a not-so-secret code for "sluts." And when people talk about "personal responsibility", that's a not-so-secret code for "punishing the sluts."
Don't forget that I was once pro-life, conservative, and Christian. I know the codes, Ana.
Maybe you can read, but you can't remember who wrote what you read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 11:56 AM anastasia has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 230 (388037)
03-04-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by iano
03-02-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Greater hate has no woman than this, that she lay down her babies life for hersel
Great going there NJ. Fantastic writing quality and penetration given the amount of opposition. The red bar makes me shudder in rememberance
Thank you, Iano.
You should consider coming back full time. It seems unnatural that you are not here, because when I first arrived at EvC, it was your hand (avatar) that was the telltale sign for me that I was amongst friends.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 6:58 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 11:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 230 (388041)
03-04-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 11:32 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
... the telltale sign for me that I was amongst friends.
Somebody who agrees with you when you're wrong is more of an accomplice than a friend.
Your true friends are the ones who try to help you overcome your flaws.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 169 of 230 (388042)
03-04-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by anastasia
03-04-2007 10:37 AM


Re: Obvious Examples
Maybe you can read, but you can't remember who wrote what you read.
Refresh my memory, then. Where, then, did you voice your overwhelming support for expanded access to contraception and health care? Because it's my recollection that you dismissed those as only trivially connected to the abortion debate, hence the lack of interest in those issues among "pro-lifers."
And it's also my recollection that you just framed the issue in terms of selfish women who need to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Is my memory in error? Or maybe you're the one who needs to be reminded?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 10:37 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 170 of 230 (388047)
03-04-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Obvious Examples
ana writes:
...but I have absolutely no clue why a pro-life stance would affect the other two items. (which were adoption and public healthcare) Well, maybe the publically funded healthcare is providing services that the tax-payer finds disturbing...but I can't picture any other reason.
I think we all can do a better job at reducing the number of abortions. Sex ed is great, but face it, the world is so filled with images that scream to young people about how to dress, etc...and honestly women don't see many role models who make modesty or anything close to it look desirable.
Crashfrog writes:
Where, then, did you voice your overwhelming support for expanded access to contraception and health care?
I have not voiced either support or opposition to these things for myself. I was asked why pro-lifers generally are opposed to four things;
liberal adoption laws,
publicly funded health care,
sex ed in classrooms,
access to contraception.
I didn't say anything was 'trivial'. I said, in regards to 3 of the 4 items above, contraception being the exception, that I have no idea what the connection is between a pro-life stance and those other issues.
And it's also my recollection that you just framed the issue in terms of selfish women who need to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Is my memory in error? Or maybe you're the one who needs to be reminded?
If you would just cite me, you would not need to have your memory jogged. I put my post up there, so if anyone else would like to take offense to my statement that young women need some better role models to supplement what they have learned in sex ed, they may feel free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 11:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 12:59 PM anastasia has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 230 (388048)
03-04-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
03-02-2007 9:46 PM


Re: Who is ...
Please quote correctly:
quote:
The issue is that you claimed a fetus "forces" itself inside its mother.
is NOT the same as
quote:
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman, and rather relentlessly.
The fetus is a product of cell division that occurs rather relentlessly whether the woman wants it to or not.
You say this as if a fetus has some malevolent intentions or as if it is some sort of aberration that a fetus is dependent upon its mother for survival. You do realize that this trend continues long after birth, I presume?
You are comparing a caring and wanting family making a decision to have children with a woman that does not want to have a child - especially one that did not engage in sex for the purpose of having a child, and most especially one that did not willingly engage in sex.
What does "want" have anything to do with it? Tell me RAZD: When a man who just wants to have sex and he gets a girl pregnant, suppose she wants to keep the child. Does his whiny cry of, "I didn't want to have kids" play any factor in whether or not he is made to legally pay child support? Should his "want" supersede his moral obligation? No. Why should it be any different for a woman?
Remember I said an "unwanted fetus". This is rather like the difference between having a chosen life partner live with you and having a stranger move in and take over, asking you to cloth and feed them and pay their living expenses while they sit around and watch tv.
No RAZD, this is the sad part-- that you equate a baby growing inside her mother's womb as a stranger coming in watching your television. There are a lot of things that we don't, RAZD, but we keep moving because we are obligated to it. And if its so much of a problem for her, she can adopt the child and wash her hands of him once and for all.
The original comparison was between the forced participation in sex with an unwanted partner - rape - and the forced participation in the growth of the unwanted fetus.
That fetus did not will itself upon anyone, least of all, his/her own mother. The mother and father placed him/her there. Really, there is such a thing called accountability and it supersedes any of our wants and desires.
The fact that the fetus grows whether the woman wants it to or not
is more commonly referred to as, "nature."
the process it changes the hormones and other chemicals in her body and robbing her of nutrients and energy, and that this and the increased size and weight impinges on her ability to carry on life in a way that she desires to live.
"Robbing her?" If it robs her or impinges on her ability to carry on the life in the way she desires, then maybe she should have exercised her freedom of choice beforehand... Its not like she didn't know that such a possibility exists. If anyone gets a venereal disease or pregnant these days, they are too well informed long before to claim ignorance about it. Its like these people who smoked for 20 years and try to sue tobacco companies when they develop emphysema. "I just wanted to enjoy smoking. I never intended on developing emphysema." Yeah, no kidding, but you knew the distinct possibility existed before!
You must realize that no life was "created" - two living elements sometimes combine (when an egg is fertilized) following sex, but they were not "dead" before. All that has happened is that some DNA has combined. DNA is not a person.
Then you aren't a person either. It was the "combined" DNA that made you even possible. But if you still say no, when and how does a human being come to life?
By the time you've reached full term the percentage is down even more, and then there is the success rate of births that result in healthy (breathing, functioning heart, functioning brain) babies. You're probably into low single digits percentage wise of results in a healthy baby due to having sex.
RAZD, these statistics you've provided literally have nothing to do with abortion. You are conflating the probability that a fetus will grow to be a normal and healthy adult in a way to justify abortion. One has nothing to do with the other. You are adding superfluous elements to the equation to minimize the lifecycle of all humans, heck, all mammals.
But consider this: Working the flight deck on an aircraft carrier is dangerous-- some say its the most hazardous job their is, speaking strictly from a probabilistic view point. Because accidents happen on the flight deck, would that somehow detract from someone who sabotaged the flight deck to injure people. No, those numbers mean nothing because its the intent we're looking for. And intentionally killing someone without a legitimate basis is murder.
an unwanted fetus forces itself on the woman, forces her to participate in it's continued growth and domination of her body.
You are blaming a fetus for doing something that nature has doled out, RAZD. This is how you were created. Its how I was. Its how we all were. Why do you speak about in terms as if we were trying to wreak havoc on mothers who we are utterly dependent upon for our own survival, even long after we're born?
Babies require access to atmosphere to breath - that is one of the things that makes a baby fundamentally different from a fetus.
See that fused hole in your mid section? That's your navel which once connected you to your mother via the umbilical cord. That's where you received your oxygen.
As for your terms, such as fetus, blastocyst, etc, those are descriptions of gestation. Those aren't words that dehumanize us anymore than infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult would cancel out or allow us to be referred to as humans.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2007 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 3:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 172 of 230 (388050)
03-04-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
03-04-2007 3:45 AM


Re: Obvious Examples
In response to you and to RAZD, because you both make good points, without all that hatred and presumption ; I will try to tell you how religion feels about abortion, and why, but just please bear in mind that this does not reflect my personal stance, which is much more complicated.
Straggler writes:
Utterly arbitary but equally valid and with equally as much physical evidence (i.e. none - there is no evidence for the soul in a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent or fully formed adult)
We can not prove a soul, but we have no doubt that murder of a baby, toddler, child, adolescent, or adult is wrong. The question is not about the soul, only so far as the soul is what is thought by religious people to be the underlying cause for respect of human life. As is noted, those who are pro-choice have this same respect, and there are many many non-religious people who are absolutely opposed to abortion based on respect for life alone.
The question is still about human life, whether or not we believe in a soul, and the question is still; when does human life begin?
Now, you are all aware that we don't know....not exactly. Quite simply, if we don't know, we can't 'decide' for ourselves.
I am curious about where folks around here stand on partial birth or late term abortion? Is there some cut-off point where you all have decided human life is definitely present, or do abortion rights apply universally to any baby not yet born?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 3:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 12:56 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 3:01 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 173 of 230 (388052)
03-04-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
03-03-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions,
So, would it be ok, according to this, to disconnect all babies in neo-natal care from their oxygen supplies? Just curious about how you feel.
an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.
And does a baby count as someone legally incompetant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2007 5:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 3:27 PM anastasia has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 230 (388054)
03-04-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by anastasia
03-04-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
anastasia writes:
I am curious about where folks around here stand on partial birth or late term abortion?
It's not about whether a fetus has a soul or whether a fetus is a "human life".
It's about whether or not it's a separate life.
In my opinion, the dividing line "should" be when the fetus is capable of living on it's own, outside the host's mother's body. And that viability is determined by the medical personnel involved in each individual case - not by anecdotal evidence that "some premature babies can survive at x weeks old".
Before it becomes individually viable, the fetus is a "mass of cells", no different from a tumour or a gangrenous limb.
After it becomes individually viable, it becomes a candidate for adoption. Whether it's adopted by its biological mother or by somebody else is irrelevant.
Edited by Ringo, : Changed "birth mother" to "biological mother".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 1:21 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 230 (388055)
03-04-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by anastasia
03-04-2007 12:16 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
I have not voiced either support or opposition to these things for myself.
So, then, I was correct. You voice the same contradictory apathy towards things like contraception that the nation's so-called "pro-life" organizations do.
I have no idea what the connection is between a pro-life stance and those other issues.
I informed you what the connection is - those policies demonstratively reduce the number of abortions.
That they are policies often opposed by the nation's ostensibly anti-abortion organizations is the contradiction that I have asked you to address, with no response except a shrug.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 12:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 1:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 176 of 230 (388056)
03-04-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Crashfrog writes:
That they are policies often opposed by the nation's ostensibly anti-abortion organizations is the contradiction that I have asked you to address, with no response except a shrug.
As I said, I have no idea why people who are pro-life are also generally anti adoption agency, or anti public health care. I was asked for a response, and since I am not one of the opposers of either of these things, I am not the correct person to ask. How am I evil for admitting that I don't know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 1:45 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 177 of 230 (388060)
03-04-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
03-04-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Ringo writes:
In my opinion, the dividing line "should" be when the fetus is capable of living on it's own,
To what extent? Many adults are not capable of living on their own, and many full-term babies are born with medical conditions that require life-long support.
Anyway, the thing is, we are all entitled to our little 'opinions' because we simply don't know any better, OR, none of us are entitled to our opinions for the same reason.
Before it becomes individually viable, the fetus is a "mass of cells", no different from a tumour or a gangrenous limb.
Wasn't there a time when all deformed, colored, or 'different' people were thought of in the same way? Wasn't there a time when all children that could not be self-sustaining after a certain point were thrown away, shipped to lives in circuses or over-crowded and rank asylums? Is it not just a tad hypocritical to use technological and medical breakthrough to save some and destroy others? I mean, really, we are going only by what the individual parent 'wants' to do in regards to saving her child. There are now ways to detect with some surety whether or not a child would be born with Downs Syndrome. A mother is given the option of aborting the fetus if she learns the child has Downs. With the advancements we have made, there are so many questions about what is ethical that it becomes a very very gray area to decide what is worthy of life and what is not. It is all about opinions, really, and either we have full say-so, or no say-so. It is either up to us, or up to God. Depends on who you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 12:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 1:47 PM anastasia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 230 (388062)
03-04-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by anastasia
03-04-2007 1:09 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
How am I evil for admitting that I don't know?
Who said you were evil?
And, what? You honestly can't figure out why national organizations that claim to oppose abortion are completely uninterested in promoting policies that reduce abortions?
Really? You've never before in your life encountered a situation where an entity's actions were completely contradictory to their stated goals? You really have no idea what to think in such a situation, or what conclusions could possibly be reached?
What a world of naivete you must inhabit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 1:09 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 2:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 179 of 230 (388064)
03-04-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by anastasia
03-04-2007 1:21 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
anastasia writes:
Many adults are not capable of living on their own, and many full-term babies are born with medical conditions that require life-long support.
I thought I was fairly clear that I was talking about biological viability, not social or economic viability. All of us have needs, but if those needs are met we can function as invividual organisms. My point was that there is a point when no fetus can survive as an individual organism. At that point, it has no individual rights.
Anyway, the thing is, we are all entitled to our little 'opinions' because we simply don't know any better, OR, none of us are entitled to our opinions for the same reason.
That sounds like something Rob would say. Do you have an English translation?
Wasn't there a time when all deformed, colored, or 'different' people were thought of in the same way?
No. Once again, I am talking about the difference between separate organisms and parts of the same organism.
I mean, really, we are going only by what the individual parent 'wants' to do in regards to saving her child.
If a parent "wants" to throw his/her child away, society feels an obligation to step in and help that child. So where is the corresponding feeling of obligation on the part of anti-abortionists?
With the advancements we have made, there are so many questions about what is ethical that it becomes a very very gray area to decide what is worthy of life and what is not.
Which is precisely why the decision should be up to the woman and her medical advisors. Why does some clod with an "Abortion is Murder!" sign have a corner on ethics?
It is either up to us, or up to God. Depends on who you ask.
You asked "the folks around here", one of whom is me.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 1:21 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by anastasia, posted 03-04-2007 2:21 PM ringo has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 180 of 230 (388068)
03-04-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
03-04-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Ringo writes:
At that point, it has no individual rights
Understood. Maybe we are arguing the potential rather than the immanant? Not that its a great point, but speaking for myself, the potential is what gets me when it comes to ending a life that we will never 'experience' in this world again...unless you believe in some recyling or reincarnation of life.
That sounds like something Rob would say.
Funny, but Rob doesn't even understand what I say half the time. I am not sure who to blame.
Once again, I am talking about the difference between separate organisms and parts of the same organism.
So, would you sorta be opposed to late-term abortions where the organism could live on its own with the appropriate support?
If a parent "wants" to throw his/her child away, society feels an obligation to step in and help that child. So where is the corresponding feeling of obligation on the part of anti-abortionists?
I don't know exactly what the issue is here, but I can only help if I have more specifics to understand what is or is not part of religious teaching. Adoption for instance is obviously not against Catholicism, so I am not sure how a religious anti-abortion stance affects adoption...I need to know more particulars about what is being opposed and who is opposing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 1:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 2:24 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 2:50 PM anastasia 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