Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion questions...?
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 331 of 403 (602938)
02-01-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by slevesque
02-01-2011 5:10 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
Do you, or do you not, agree that we should try and save both the foetus and the mother ?
Depends on the circumstances of the particular event.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:10 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 9:55 PM jar has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 332 of 403 (602945)
02-01-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by slevesque
02-01-2011 4:54 PM


Re: step by step
I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb.
Forgive me if I do not recall you defining your "life point" (the point where this parasite we call a fetus is a human life) at 25 weeks, prior to the post I am replying to....
So when you can save that life, and the mother's life, you should. No matter what the differences in costs. That's what I'm saying.
When does it become a "life"? How do you determine it to be as such?
I would certainly be for easier adoption procedures, particularly for children within your own country.
So you would be a champion for same sex couples rights to adopt?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 4:54 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 10:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9276
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 333 of 403 (602952)
02-01-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:38 PM


Re: step by step
In any case, the specific example I chose is a non-issue. The point is that if you can save the mother and the foetus, then that is what you should do.
No it isn't because you made it an issue. You are doing a pro-life gish gallop. Throw a bunch a shit up and hope no one has time to check the facts.
You self-righteous smug prolifers repeat the lies and half truths you hear as if you have verified the facts. Maybe you should gather facts before you make statements like you did about ectopic pregnancies.
I am also not impressed with your use of the Daily Mail as your source for scientific information. Do you not know what sensationalism is?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:38 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Panda, posted 02-01-2011 8:06 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 340 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 10:18 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3792 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 334 of 403 (602957)
02-01-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Theodoric
02-01-2011 7:51 PM


Re: step by step
Theodoric writes:
I am also not impressed with your use of the Daily Mail as your source for scientific information. Do you not know what sensationalism is?
Calling the daily mail sensationalist is an undeserved compliment.
"Full of lies, hate, fear-mongering and racism." is more accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2011 7:51 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 335 of 403 (602958)
02-01-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Briterican
02-01-2011 4:19 PM


Re: step by step
We have this raging debate about where life begins... conception, 100th cell division, and so on,
IMHO, this is the wrong debate to have. The real discussion should focus on why women seek abortions to begin with.
If a woman who is 5 weeks pregnant (a point at which I assume most "pro-lifers" consider it a "human being") decides to take a ride on a bicycle, hits a bump, falls off and has a miscarriage as a result of the tumble... is she guilty of negligent homicide? If not, how can voluntary termination at this early stage be considered homicide?
There are many stories of women prior to Roe v. Wade purposefully injuring themselves in falls in order to induce a miscarriage.
And what if a fetus does have a soul that goes on to the afterlife? Given that half of pregnancies naturally abort in the first month without the mother really noticing I can only assume that the vast majority of people in heaven will be fetuses that never made it past the 4 week stage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Briterican, posted 02-01-2011 4:19 PM Briterican has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 336 of 403 (602961)
02-01-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by ringo
02-01-2011 5:42 PM


Re: step by step
So if the closest relatives - e.g. the mother - get to decide how much effort goes into saving a five-year-old child,
But I did not say the mother decides how much effort is put into saving the life. I said that, as a collectivity, who should decide that the maximum effort should be put into saving every human life. But, when all has been done, and there is no chance for recovery, then the closest relatives then chooses to let nature take it's course.
Now, as I see it, the united states hasn't yet made that decision. It has decided, by having a private health-care system, that someone will in fact choose how much effort is to be put into saving someone's life. So when I say as a collectivity we decided, it is represented in reality by a public health-care system, where the rich man and the poor both have the same treatement, and both will recieve the maximum effort to save their life. (in theory)
why should complete strangers get to decide the fate of a five-week-old fetus?
You are looking at it from the wrong angle, it is not about ''complete strangers deciding''. It is about the collectivity as a society needing to speak for those who cannot speak, defend those who are defenseless.
Think about it, this is what we do for all other groups of people in the same situation. Mentally retarded people (is that pejorative ? what is the politically correct term for that?) who will never be able to defend themselves. Society has the role to defend them. Children who do not yet have the ability to defend themselves, society must do it for them until they are able. Elderly people who have lost this ability, society takes this charge. We become responsible of those people.
Same with a foetus. If we agree that it is a human being, then it is our job as a collectivity to decide for them, since they are not yet able. I propose that the correct decision is to try, as much as possible, to have them see the light of day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 5:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by ringo, posted 02-01-2011 11:33 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 337 of 403 (602962)
02-01-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by jar
02-01-2011 6:26 PM


Re: step by step
Depends on the circumstances of the particular event.
What circumstances would you be comfortable with simply aborting the foetus instead of trying your best to keep it alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 02-01-2011 6:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 02-01-2011 10:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 338 of 403 (602963)
02-01-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by slevesque
02-01-2011 9:55 PM


Re: step by step
slevesque writes:
Depends on the circumstances of the particular event.
What circumstances would you be comfortable with simply aborting the foetus instead of trying your best to keep it alive.
Many, many, many. Any time either the doctors or mother feel the risk is too great. Anytime the penalties that would be visited on the mother are more than she is willing to reasonable assume.
When the society is unwilling to assume the financial, cultural and emotional imposition involved in saving the foetus.
The point is that it is not MY decision to make.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 9:55 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 339 of 403 (602964)
02-01-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by hooah212002
02-01-2011 6:55 PM


Re: step by step
Forgive me if I do not recall you defining your "life point" (the point where this parasite we call a fetus is a human life) at 25 weeks, prior to the post I am replying to....
That's because it isn't a ''life point''. We are discussing the situation where the pregnancy would kill the mother, and if in that case it was acceptable to abort. I said yes, with the specification that if the foetus could be saved in the process, then this should be done. So the ''savable point'' is right now around 25 weeks. You invoked monetary reasons for not saving the life, I answered that no monetary reasons should be valid when talking about saving a human life. You then said that the only life that can be substantially defined is the mother's. This is why I said that this wasn't the case, and that in fact many would clearly define the life we were talking about (a 25 weeks 'savable' foetus) as a human life.
When does it become a "life"? How do you determine it to be as such?
I personnally identify the line at the 100th cell division, but as others have said this isn't the issue. We all put the line somewhere, the question is, what should be done to those who we think are human lifes ?
So you would be a champion for same sex couples rights to adopt?
Another subject, but no I would not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by hooah212002, posted 02-01-2011 6:55 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by hooah212002, posted 02-02-2011 11:41 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 340 of 403 (602965)
02-01-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Theodoric
02-01-2011 7:51 PM


Re: step by step
No it isn't because you made it an issue. You are doing a pro-life gish gallop. Throw a bunch a shit up and hope no one has time to check the facts.
You have got to be kidding me. You honestly think invented shit up and hoped no one whould check ?
Seriously, this i why I hate discussing with you, you always assume the worst of people
And this is even after being shown wrong multiple times. I'm sorry, but I did my best to provide evidence for everything I said whenever it was asked, even when they are only anecdotal personnal experience.
You self-righteous smug prolifers repeat the lies and half truths you hear as if you have verified the facts. Maybe you should gather facts before you make statements like you did about ectopic pregnancies.
Your just making a fool of yourself just by directly insulting my integrity in this.
What did I say about ectopic pregancies ? That in some cases the foetus could be saved. This was shown to be true by both purpledawns linked and mine.
I didn't say it was common, I didn't say it was rare. I did not know if it was either case. I said what I knew was true, and that was that it happened, and so that in some cases it was possible to save the foetus.
I am also not impressed with your use of the Daily Mail as your source for scientific information. Do you not know what sensationalism is?
Sorry, I do not know the daily mail and how it approaches information.
I am certainly not impressed that you are juding me on the basis that I am faulty of not knowing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2011 7:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2011 10:54 AM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 341 of 403 (602976)
02-01-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by slevesque
02-01-2011 9:53 PM


slevesque writes:
But I did not say the mother decides how much effort is put into saving the life. I said that, as a collectivity, who should decide that the maximum effort should be put into saving every human life.
I didn't ask you who "should" decide. I asked you who does decide. And I asked you why the decision "should" be placed in different hands for a fetus than for a five-year-old.
slevesque writes:
You are looking at it from the wrong angle, it is not about ''complete strangers deciding''. It is about the collectivity as a society needing to speak for those who cannot speak, defend those who are defenseless.
The "collectivity" are complete strangers. You want them to make decision "for" a defenseless fetus and against a defenseless woman. What most people in this thread are saying is that the woman should be allowed to make the decision.
slevesque writes:
Same with a foetus. If we agree that it is a human being....
But we don't agree on that.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 9:53 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2011 4:13 PM ringo has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 342 of 403 (602986)
02-02-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:26 PM


Re: step by step
Every child should be given a chance to live, even if the starting situation isn't ideal.
Says you, but that is not the reality. 2/3 of the world is either starving or malnutritioned, I think we have enough humans. Watching humans starve to death is not worth it. Those humans did not need to be given a chance to live. What kind of life is one spent starving till that shitty life is gone?
It would be very moral to make a conscious decision not to subject humans to this kind of condition.
Being raised in an orphanage, or a foster home, doesn't mean he will go in prison ....
No, but coming from a broken home, especially for minorities, will.
source
quote:
Bell said 70 percent of inmates come from broken homes. He said dysfunctional families and physical, mental and sexual abuse lead to psychological problems. Coping with these problems often leads to drug use.
Concerning socioeconomic factors, Bell said, "It is no accident that 50 percent of inmates are disadvantaged, deprived minorities." He added that one out of four black youths is somewhere in the criminal justice system.
Bell said that it costs $40,000 a year on the average to house an inmate. He said, "That's five times higher than tuition at Penn State."
How many more humans do you want to add to these numbers?
A conscious decision to abort, rather than subject the child to this, or poverty, or malnutrituion, or starvation, is a very moral thing to do.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:26 PM slevesque has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 343 of 403 (602998)
02-02-2011 6:12 AM


Argue the Position
A strong reminder to participants to argue the position and not the person.
This thread is over 300 posts, so if I see this discussion becoming more about badgering and insulting debating styles or personal choices, I will close the thread.
Please don't respond to this post.
Thanks
AdminPD

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9276
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 344 of 403 (603021)
02-02-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by slevesque
02-01-2011 10:18 PM


Re: step by step
I'm sorry, but I did my best to provide evidence for everything I said whenever it was asked, even when they are only anecdotal personnal experience.
That is the rub. You have to be asked to provide evidence. Maybe if you provided the evidence with your claims you wouldn't attempt to throw up crap like your ectopic pregnancy claim. I do not understand why you get offended when I demand evidence for your claims. I do not trust anyone's claims. I want to see the actual source myself so I can be sure it is being represented accurately. If you have a problem with that, so be it.
As an admin you should know that all your claims are open for discussion and you should be providing evidence and sources for your claims, without being asked for them.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 10:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2011 4:20 PM Theodoric has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 345 of 403 (603032)
02-02-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by slevesque
02-01-2011 10:07 PM


Re: step by step
We are discussing the situation where the pregnancy would kill the mother,...
No, WE are not. You may be discussing that with other members, but not me. I am talking about all abortions.
So the ''savable point'' is right now around 25 weeks.
So before 25 weeks, it is ok to abort?
I personnally identify the line at the 100th cell division, but as others have said this isn't the issue. We all put the line somewhere, the question is, what should be done to those who we think are human lifes ?
That is the rub, don't you see? Each one of the anti-choicers has a different idea of when it becomes a life, but the lot of you still call ALL abortion murder.
Another subject, but no I would not.
Ahh, the hypocrisy is astounding! So you have no problem flinging unwanted children into the system, into foster care or orphanages, but you don't want to give these children MORE chances to get placed into a happy home? Do you honestly think there are more foster parents than children looking for homes?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 10:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2011 4:31 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but 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