Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,645 Year: 4,902/9,624 Month: 250/427 Week: 60/103 Day: 4/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problem with Legalized Abortion
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 271 of 293 (444938)
12-31-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 1:35 PM


it's not a death penalty. it's not my fault the parasite can't survive on it's own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:35 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 2:23 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 272 of 293 (444946)
12-31-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by macaroniandcheese
12-31-2007 1:54 PM


it's not a death penalty. it's not my fault the parasite can't survive on it's own.
Why is it not classified as a death penalty if the being cannot survive on its own and thus dies because you decided that it was not worth your time and effort?
What characteristics of the fetus cause you to classify it as a parasite?
A one-month-old baby cannot survive on its own either and is a parasite to its care giver. I guess putting it in a dumpster, away from its source of sustenance, is not enacting a death penalty for its potential to cost the care giver time and money.
Christopher Reeve could not live without his respirator and he was a bit of a burden to his wife and family. Are you saying that he lived due to their great benevolence and could have been removed from that which allowed him to survive with no consequence to those who removed him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 1:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM LinearAq has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 273 of 293 (444950)
12-31-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 2:23 PM


What characteristics of the fetus cause you to classify it as a parasite?
the part where it takes nourishment and energy and returns no benefits.
A one-month-old baby cannot survive on its own either and is a parasite to its care giver. I guess putting it in a dumpster, away from its source of sustenance, is not enacting a death penalty for its potential to cost the care giver time and money.
nope, skateboard punks rescue babies in dumpsters all the time.
Christopher Reeve could not live without his respirator and he was a bit of a burden to his wife and family. Are you saying that he lived due to their great benevolence and could have been removed from that which allowed him to survive with no consequence to those who removed him?
more or less.
but the point is this. those things, infants and vegetables in various states can survive by someone else's input, not requiring *mine* specifically. if you want to start volunteering good christian wombs for transplant babies, have at. it's not about not being worth time and effort, it's about not putting myself in peril of life or wellbeing.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 2:23 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 2:48 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 274 of 293 (444952)
12-31-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 1:35 PM


BTW: There's this new thing that they've come up with in the US to help you with that 20-year issue. It's called adoption. Maybe you should check it out.
What about the whole 9-months part? They can't really help with that, you know. Ever known a pregnant woman? Pregnancy isn't fun - it's a whole host of chemical changes that mess with your emotions, eating habits, and essentially messes up your entire life while a parasite you don't even want grows inside of you.
What about the very real risks to the mothers life inherent in childbirth? Death is rare in first-world countries, but the risk IS there, while legal abortions are not associated with such risks.
What about necessary Cesarean births? Is it ethical in your eyes to force a woman to have her abdomen sliced open to remove the baby? That's a very possible risk associated with pregnancy. Forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy does constitute forced surgery if a Cesarean is required, even if it can't be forseen at the outset.
Does the potential life of the fetus in your eyes completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body? I'll tell you this - I would not take kindly to anyone who tried to force me to undergo a series of hormonal treatments for nine months, made my body grow in such ways that movement becomes difficult and work becomes impossible for three of the nine months, and finished it off by forcing me to go through either hours of excruciating pain or possibly even forced surgery.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:35 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 2:56 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 278 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 3:04 PM Rahvin has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 275 of 293 (444957)
12-31-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by macaroniandcheese
12-31-2007 2:26 PM


it's not about not being worth time and effort, it's about not putting myself in peril of life or wellbeing.
If the baby imperils your life then it would not survive anyway so this doesn't appear to be a problem as far as making abortion necessary. You know I have already said so.
"Wellbeing" is an amorphous term. You could use it to describe that your health is in danger or it could mean something as innocuous as you might have less orgasms if you are pregnant.
If you don't want to put yourself in peril, then don't have intercourse (since you believe chemical or mechanical contraception is risky). I'm sure there are many other ways of satisfying yourself with your partner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 2:54 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 276 of 293 (444959)
12-31-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 2:48 PM


"Wellbeing" is an amorphous term. You could use it to describe that your health is in danger or it could mean something as innocuous as you might have less orgasms if you are pregnant.
"innocuous" to you may be vital to me.
a little back pain to you might be a mild inconvenience. but to me as a non-pregnant woman, it's often debilitating. and you want to force me to carry a 40lb weight in front of me? i've had to start sleeping with an electric blanket for my back, not to mention the amount of anti-inflammatories i take for my joints would probably be fatal to a fetus and to me if i were pregnant. you know. i don't really know if i'll ever be able to have children. but, shouldn't it be when i'm medically prepared? and shouldn't i be the one to make that choice? i know you say you're not in support of criminalization, but the arguments you use are the same ones used by those who are.
If you don't want to put yourself in peril, then don't have intercourse
why should i conform my behavior to your standards, when i have perfectly safe and healthful options?
since you believe chemical or mechanical contraception is risky
i don't think it's risky, but it's not foolproof. your assertion that only an incompetent and irresponsible moron would be at risk of messing them up is unfounded. it's rude and offensive.
as it is, i'm on a long-term birth control because i have a disability that prevents me from remembering to take a pill everyday.
to some people, because of their potential side affects, they are risky.
I'm sure there are many other ways of satisfying yourself with your partner.
who said anything about satisfying anyone?
you really need to stop assuming that your interpretation of reality is the correct one. this post is a prime example. you presume to know what "peril" consists of, you presume to have the correct behavioral solutions, and you presume to speak for who is irresponsible, and then you assume that sex is about satisfying some urge. since your reality and mine are clearly different, stop presuming to speak for what is best for my reality.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 2:48 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 277 of 293 (444960)
12-31-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Rahvin
12-31-2007 2:32 PM


you're my hero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 2:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 278 of 293 (444962)
12-31-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Rahvin
12-31-2007 2:32 PM


What about the very real risks to the mothers life inherent in childbirth? Death is rare in first-world countries, but the risk IS there, while legal abortions are not associated with such risks.
What about them? How much of a risk is it? How does that risk compare with those of other things we do in life?
Does this extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk?
What about necessary Cesarean births? Is it ethical in your eyes to force a woman to have her abdomen sliced open to remove the baby? That's a very possible risk associated with pregnancy. Forcing a woman to continue the pregnancy does constitute forced surgery if a Cesarean is required, even if it can't be forseen at the outset.
How risky are they? How do they add to the overall risk of pregnancy?
Does this even more extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk?
Smoking cigarettes is associated with lung cancer. Smokers run the risk that they will have to have major surgery.
Having sex is a risk that you might get pregnant. The man runs the risk that he might be financially liable for a child. Not as much risk as the mother surely. Don't like the risk of getting pregnant, then don't engage in intercourse.
Does the potential life of the fetus in your eyes completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body? I'll tell you this - I would not take kindly to anyone who tried to force me to undergo a series of hormonal treatments for nine months, made my body grow in such ways that movement becomes difficult and work becomes impossible for three of the nine months, and finished it off by forcing me to go through either hours of excruciating pain or possibly even forced surgery.
Does a 2-month-old's life completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body? What makes a fetus different? The difference is that the woman can regain her rights and freedom without killing the 2-month-old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 2:32 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 3:49 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 284 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-02-2008 11:51 AM LinearAq has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 279 of 293 (444966)
12-31-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 1:16 PM


LinearAq writes:
quote:
I have said consistently that if a fetus becomes a person at conception, it should have the same rights at conception that we currently give it at birth.
Yes and then you have springboarded from that to saying that we should be taking extraordinary effort to save those fetuses that die due to miscarriage or never implant.
Again I urge you to actually read the thread. Then maybe you can point out where I've said any such thing.
What I have said is that if anti-abortionists were sincere in their claims that the fetus is human, they would be having funerals and reserving burial plots for miscarried fetuses, just as they have funerals and burial plots for babies that die five minutes after birth.
So, you think if these Christians support sex outside of marriage, that would prove to you that controlling women is not their ultimate goal, even if they also were anti abortion.
Who said anything about "supporting" sex outside of marriage?
If anti-abortionists as a group were to do anything for the fetus (and you're still welcome to provide the evidence that they do), that would go some way toward convincing me that their claimed motivations were sincere. As it is, all I'm seeing is anti-abortionists humiliating and harassing women who want abortions.
Those misrepresentations of the dangers of abortion by anti-abortionists will no longer be decried as scurrilous by you....
You really, really, really need to read the thread before you waste any more of my time with such misrepresentation.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 1:16 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 280 of 293 (444969)
12-31-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 3:04 PM


What about them? How much of a risk is it? How does that risk compare with those of other things we do in life?
Irrelevant. The risk would not be there if the pregnancy was terminated, and it's a risk you're talking about forcing on women, not something they choose to do like anything else in their lives.
Does this extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk?
A human being that doesn't exist yet. It hasn't been born yet. Depending on what point of the pregnancy we're talking about, it doesn't even have a functioning brain.
How risky are they? How do they add to the overall risk of pregnancy?
Does this even more extraordinary risk warrant the death of another human that did nothing to cause the risk?
Again, irrelevant. It's all risk that you are forcing on the woman, because the risk would not be there if she were not pregnant.
Smoking cigarettes is associated with lung cancer. Smokers run the risk that they will have to have major surgery.
And if you force someone to smoke, you're not a very good person. Those who choose to continue to smoke, and those who choose to remain pregnant are not the issue. The issue is that you want to force women to continue to be pregnant.
Having sex is a risk that you might get pregnant. The man runs the risk that he might be financially liable for a child. Not as much risk as the mother surely. Don't like the risk of getting pregnant, then don't engage in intercourse.
Repress all sexual instincts? Now there's a good idea. That doesn't lead to mental and emotional problems at all. And when a pregnancy (bearing in mind that I advocate the use of contraception, but that no contraception is 100% effective)can be terminated before the fetus develops into anything resembling a human being except on the genetic level, and is more akin to a leech...
Does a 2-month-old's life completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body? What makes a fetus different? The difference is that the woman can regain her rights and freedom without killing the 2-month-old.
2-month olds are not relevant to the conversation. A fetus is physically attached to the womans body, and pregnancy adds risks and makes fundamental changes to the womans body. These changes and risks would be against her will if you force her to remain pregnant. The toddler can easily be given for adoption - the situation is completely different.
And you still havent addressed my question of forced surgery.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 3:04 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 281 of 293 (444973)
12-31-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 9:57 AM


Besides that, she's wrong.
The status of Viagra changed this year. I was unaware of that.
In report from 2005:
Medicaid currently spends about $15 million a year on impotence drugs, proponents of the measure said. But they cited Congressional Budget Office projections saying the government would spend $2 billion over 10 years on impotence treatments once Medicare begins offering prescription drug treatment in 2006.
It remains to be seen what happens to Viagra coverage in practice.
Birth control coverage, tho technically provided by the Medicaid, is hard for low income women to obtain.
The status of Medicaid birth control coverage is on the floor of the Senate.
The Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act of 2007 (S. 1075/H.R. 2523), introduced in the 110th Congress in the Senate by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and in the House by Reps. Nita Lowey (D-NY-18) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3) will improve access to safe, affordable, and effective contraception by restoring and strengthening Medicaid coverage of family planning services. This bill employs a very simple principle of equity: women who would receive Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-related services should also receive coverage to prevent pregnancy if they so choose. As such, the bill requires states to provide Medicaid coverage for family planning services and supplies to all women who would be entitled to Medicaid-funded prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum care if they became pregnant.
Researchers estimate that one in five women of reproductive age were uninsured in 2003--a 10 percent increase in uninsured women since 2001--and roughly 400,000 more women joined the ranks of those needing publicly subsidized care in just two years. However, 27 states and the District of Columbia have seen family planning funding decline or stagnate since 1994--a trend that could be exacerbated by new Medicaid cost-cutting proposals and greater hostility to reproductive health issues in Congress and state legislatures.
Gap Widening Between U.S. Women's Birth Control Needs and Government Response | Guttmacher Institute
Currently, 11.5% of U.S. women of reproductive age (15-44) are covered by Medicaid.
That's half of the uninsured, low income women.
Meanwhile, in the states, long-running controversy over a similar provision has led one state--Missouri--to stop funding contraceptive services entirely.
My beloved home state.
State coverage is also determined by income level.
Currently, states are required to provide pregnancy-related care to women with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, and many states extend that to 185 percent of the federal poverty level and beyond.
For example, a single person (with no children) in New York applying on his or her own can make up to more than $19,000/year to qualify for FPBP.
19K. Have you any idea what 19K means in NYC? I do. I lived in NYC for 14 years. A slum apartment in the South Bronx cost me $850/month. I made $18/hour (36K) and I could barely afford apt/food/utilities. Birth control was out of the question. And I was 17K above the cutoff.
In Illinois:
When a woman with one child earns more than $11,244 a year, she loses Medicaid coverage.
11K.
The upshot is most women who need birth control don't get it.
Low-income women are far more likely to have an unintended pregnancy because of their lack of access to health care. In fact, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy, five times as likely to have an unintended birth, and three times as likely to have an abortion as her higher-income counterpart.
The report finds that while unintended pregnancy and abortion rates have decreased among teenagers, college graduates and women in the middle or upper class, the rate has increased almost 30% among low-income women.
New Report Examines Medicaid’s Role in Family Planning | Guttmacher Institute
Furthermore, abortion services are provided only in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is endangered.
I was wrong about Medicaid coverage. But, in practice, this so called "coverage" is woefully inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 9:57 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2008 12:40 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Am5n 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5987 days)
Posts: 106
From: New York City, New York, United States
Joined: 02-21-2007


Message 282 of 293 (445031)
12-31-2007 11:20 PM


4m3n t0 d47
if anti-abortionists were sincere in their claims that the fetus is human, they would be having funerals and reserving burial plots for miscarried fetuses, just as they have funerals and burial plots for babies that die five minutes after birth.
well if that happened you'd be 1 lucky SOB, now wouldn't you?! Lets say you were a fetus, though your not, so therefor you obviously dont understand a fetuses situation, that is until you are miscarried like 1! Would you like us to attend your funeral? HELL NO! Lets just throw your dumbass is the garbage and go out and party! w00t! party baby!
We are at the most advanced! we are above all species! We are more dead then alive! wanna know something about killing? Hannibal Slaughtered, no better yet "BUTCHERED!" 50 thousand Roman soldiers. Think about it. Over 2 thousand years of killing! Murdering! slaughtering! butchering! Blood shedding! These lands, the sand and dirt. The lives of more then a billion individuals left to die.. their bodies soaking in their own shit,piss, and blood!
Is this a Fantasy?! No! Its reality! I say to you ringo and brennakimi.. "IF YOU WERE A FETUS THAT WAS ABOUT TO BE ABORTED" I'd definitely like to see what the hell you would think! oh thats right you'd be a stupid fetus, which in fact wont be able to do shit!
What do I think the problem with legalized abortion is?! People dont think they just do! but even if they took the time to think, their too fucking open minded to interpret different situations!
who said anything about satisfying anyone?
well what would you call sex? is it what you do on your lunch break?
is it a game?! is it fun?! if you dont think its satisfying, then what the hell do you think it is?! what does it do to people?! What do you think?!! what do you think?! listen lady if we didnt give a crap on what the hell you think, then we wouldnt actually waste our time with your bullshit!
you really need to stop assuming
he can assume all he wants! I can assume your a extreme feminist, but hey thats my right as an American!
all I'm seeing is anti-abortionists humiliating and harassing women who want abortions.
you live in America? Well the USA was found by God fearing people and I doubt feminist and the ACLU can rid our religions out of the U.S. We can Humiliate & Harass women who want abortions! wanna know why?! because its Freedom babe! Freedom to legalize abortion and the Freedom to the citizens who want to harass and humiliate those who seek abortions! you can assume that abortion is right, but hey lets face it! with every action! there's a reaction! AMEN TO THAT!
sincerely yours, Amen.
Post has been rendered invisible due to what seems to be impaired judgement - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. Amen, please contact me there.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"
[Matthew 27:46]
"He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."
[JOB 41:34]
"You feel the last bit of breath leaving their body. You're looking into their eyes. A person in that situation is God!" -Ted Bundy

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 1:27 AM Am5n has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 283 of 293 (445056)
01-01-2008 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Am5n
12-31-2007 11:20 PM


Re: 4m3n t0 d47
I think somebody had a little too much champagne.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Am5n, posted 12-31-2007 11:20 PM Am5n has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 284 of 293 (445435)
01-02-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by LinearAq
12-31-2007 3:04 PM


Does a 2-month-old's life completely trump a woman's right to make decisions concerning her own body?
a two-month-old doesn't need it's mother's body. so, no, it's life doesn't trump her decisions, because it has no bearing on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by LinearAq, posted 12-31-2007 3:04 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2008 12:43 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 285 of 293 (445439)
01-02-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by molbiogirl
12-31-2007 4:27 PM


molbiogirl writes:
The status of Viagra changed this year. I was unaware of that.
I actually thought you might not have known of the change, but I have to be right once in a while.
Birth control coverage, tho technically provided by the Medicaid, is hard for low income women to obtain.
I would amend that to say it is hard for low income people to obtain. That would, of course, mean that Viagra is difficult to obtain for poor men.
Furthermore, abortion services are provided only in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is endangered.
Yes, that is what is federally mandated. Very impractical, since less poor mouths to feed means less government expense.
Some states are paying for abortions for other reasons, thankfully.
The real issue concerning Medicaid is the following travesty.
I was wrong about Medicaid coverage. But, in practice, this so called "coverage" is woefully inadequate.
Not just for contraception but across the board.
Edited by LinearAq, : repair grammar and unclear wording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by molbiogirl, posted 12-31-2007 4:27 PM molbiogirl 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