A woman's right to choose.

[Jerry]

Re: Little Pricks

"Little Pricks"
How about mind your own needle dick business.

I agree with 1069 here:

It is all of our job to "worry about" all children.

..so I'm gona just sit back and let some of the new folks hash it out.

 

[rivrrat]

That's correct, MAY. I am careful about what I say. I don't know whether a fetus is a human being, and neither do you, because any debate on that issue that would have taken place was stopped dead in it's tracks by Harry Blackmun and the infamous feminazi slogan. Until such a REAL debate occurs, prudent public policy would be to prohibit almost all abortions, because they MAY be destroying a live human being.

So what if it is destroying a live human being?

 

[Iriemon]

Thanx for that, what I meant: So the Declaration of Ind. is null and void?

Unlike the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is not law. The right to life is certainly not "inalienable" -- if you murder someone you can legally be put to death, if you you attack someone you can legally be shot, and if in the armed forces you can legally be commanded to kill.

 

[OKgrannie]

Evidence?

From Time magazine, March, 1947:
Pills & Paste - TIME

"Doctors estimate that one U.S. pregnancy out of every three ends in abortion. Some abortions are spontaneous (miscarriages). Some are "therapeutic" (performed to save life). But the vast majority (about 750,000 every year) are illegal. Least likely to succeed are abortions attempted by means of drugs"

HISTORY OF ABORTION

"Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort."

Additional evidence would be the abortion rates in Latin American countries where abortion is currently illegal.

It stretches credibilty to believe that the government couldn't stop almost all of over a million abortions a year. It couldn't stop ALL of them, but neither do laws against bank robbery stop all bank robberies.

The government couldn't stop abortion before, and it certainly can't stop it now with free access to internet abortion drugs and information.

Isn't another example parents required to provide for their children? But if Barack "Infanticide" Obama gets elected, I guess even that might go away. :shock:

Parents can give their children up for adoption.

 

[jallman]

A woman does have a right to choose -

Not just a woman, but everyone has a right to personal choice.

the choice is when she decides to have vaginal sex.

That's one choice...

After she chooses to have sex, the point of choice has come and gone.

No, it has not, your misogynistic female dominating agenda notwithstanding.

Every women knows or should know that the possible result of sex is pregnancy, protection or not.

No, everyone (men included) should know this. Proper sex education would ensure this.

Claiming she has "choice" after she gets pregnant is erroneous.

Not true at all. She has a choice to carry the pregnancy to term and subsequently care for a child or give it up for adoption or she may elect to have an approved medical procedure to arrest the development of the pregnancy before the moral consequence of another "person's" well being is ever introduced.

If she "choses" an abortion, she is actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of her previous action.

No, she is choosing an approved medical procedure to end an unwanted medical condition.

Claiming that the prohibition of abortion is a negation of choice is analogous to the following. A person signs a contract to buy a house. They change their mind later but are held to the sale. They complain that they've been deprived of their choice.

That is not true. It is an erroneous comparison as no one accidentally comes into possession of a mortgage through some other activity. You are flat wrong.

When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract (as is the man) in the case of a possible pregnancy.

No she isn't. Please show me this supposed contract. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Nobody forced her to do it,

That's not always true.

and she should be held to the possible consequences of the act - not the fetus.

The fetus isn't held to any consequence in the case of an early term abortion as the fetus has no inherent stake in the termination of the pregnancy. It does not yet conceive of itself and so it loses nor gains anything by the woman exerting her choice over her own body.

While I am sure your argument made total sense to you...well, I'm sure it made sense to you.

 

[ILDUCE]

Unlike the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is not law. The right to life is certainly not "inalienable" -- if you murder someone you can legally be put to death, if you you attack someone you can legally be shot, and if in the armed forces you can legally be commanded to kill.

Yes while I understand those are militarial circumstances, is the army now performing abortions? God, its hard debating on a PSP!

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

And in the mean time? Again I ask you guys, define child!

A human being under the age of eighteen. Definition of human being, however- a creature of the species homo sapiens that is self-aware.

Yaaaaaaaaa just like blacks once weren't protected under the law, jews weren't in the nazi era in germany - that's all that matters - current law - why worry any further? :roll:

Blacks and Jews are self-aware, knew what was happening to them, and were physically able (in the vast majority of cases) able to protest what was happening to them. If a fetus asks not to be aborted, it shouldn't be. If a fetus actually does that, feel free to PM me the news.

 

[1069]

A human being under the age of eighteen. Definition of human being, however- a creature of the species homo sapiens that is self-aware.

Redundant- members of the genus homo sapiens are, by definition, sapient, ie self-aware.

 

[ILDUCE]

So does a fetus meet those terms of a child? Yes or No answer (for the blowhards)

 

[ILDUCE]

Re: Little Pricks

I agree with 1069 here:

..so I'm gona just sit back and let some of the new folks hash it out.

So you're too good to argue with noobs?

 

[1069]

So does a fetus meet those terms of a child? Yes or No answer (for the blowhards)

Gee, I dunno. That's a tough one.
Let's see, am I allowed to go around with a "child" stuffed up my twat?
No, that would be illegal (plus, the child would die of asphyxiation).
So no, I don't suppose a fetus does "meet those terms of a child".
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you demean children by likening them to nonsentient organisms.

 

[ILDUCE]

TIMEOUT! Dude, woah graphic picture. But really, does it respond to stimuli and a homo sapien?

 

[1069]

TIMEOUT! Dude, woah graphic picture. But really, does it respond to stimuli and a homo sapien?

Asked and answered. No, it does not respond to stimuli, and no, lacking the capacity for sapience, it is not a homo sapien.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Little Pricks

So you're too good to argue with noobs?

As an Evil Conservative I'm too good for even myself.

But seriously, no, I would be arguing your side, and would be doing all your work. I say this without conceit (yeah right) that you obviously have less experience than I do in debating this issue, and I think debating seasoned folks like Jallman and 1069 will be good for you. See, they and I have been around this block more than a few times and pretty much know what the other is going to say. Jallman and I even reached a compromise on abortion.

The main thing I have gained at DP is the skill to articulate myself (though I remain hopeless when it comes to spelling) and address another's point of view in a logical fashion. I will not deprive you of that lesson. It is best learned by walking through the fire, so don't be afraid to be burned.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Re: Little Pricks

So does a fetus meet those terms of a child? Yes or No answer (for the blowhards)

Is a fetus self-aware? Depends on the timing. At some point during the pregnancy (3rd trimester for sure) it becomes so, but is still using the resources of the mother without permission, and can be aborted.

So you're too good to argue with noobs?

He agrees with you- this debate has just happened several bajillion other times on the abortion threads, so he wanted to see what you and the other guy (Rick? Too lazy to check) can do.

Edit: fudge, he already said that. Oh well.

 

[jallman]

TIMEOUT! Dude, woah graphic picture. But really, does it respond to stimuli and a homo sapien?

There is a difference between response to noxious stimuli and awareness of stimuli. An amoeba responds to noxious stimuli but it is not "aware" of the stimuli. A single colon cell responds to noxious stimuli but it is not "aware" of the stimuli.

 

[ILDUCE]

Asked and answered. No, it does not respond to stimuli, and no, lacking the capacity for sapience, it is not a homo sapien.

So kicking is not a response. And what do you suppose about pre-natal twin interaction. Which I saw a report about on Today (can't remember the day). So what is the qualification for sapience.

 

[jallman]

So kicking is not a response. And what do you suppose about pre-natal twin interaction. Which I saw a report about on Today (can't remember the day). So what is the qualification for sapience.

I'll take this one. The physical qualification is a fully connected central nervous system which allows for an articulated distinction between "self" and "environment". The resulting phenomena is one in which the fetus develops "spatial awareness", knowing then that it is separate from everything around it. It also gains the ability to feel pleasure, pain, satisfaction, and desire (to live). The fetus shows distinct patterns during a natal brain scan of consciousness and sleep, organized brain wave activity, and is observed to intentionally interact with its environment even in the womb.

 

[Rick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Evidence?

From Time magazine, March, 1947:
Pills & Paste - TIME

"Doctors estimate that one U.S. pregnancy out of every three ends in abortion. Some abortions are spontaneous (miscarriages). Some are "therapeutic" (performed to save life). But the vast majority (about 750,000 every year) are illegal. Least likely to succeed are abortions attempted by means of drugs"

HISTORY OF ABORTION

"Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort."

Additional evidence would be the abortion rates in Latin American countries where abortion is currently illegal.

Whoa Granny, a 1947 issue of Time?? :lol: Where the hell did you get that - out of your treasured abortion keepsakes in the attic? :lol: And quoting unamed doctors and sources - sorry, I need a more believable reference.

Quote:
It stretches credibilty to believe that the government couldn't stop almost all of over a million abortions a year. It couldn't stop ALL of them, but neither do laws against bank robbery stop all bank robberies.

The government couldn't stop abortion before, and it certainly can't stop it now with free access to internet abortion drugs and information.

Oh - you mean you aren't REALLY going to use the wire hangers feminists like to parade around with? :mrgreen:

 

[Rick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
A woman does have a right to choose -

Not just a woman, but everyone has a right to personal choice.

Yep - as long as they don't harm anyone else.

Quote:
the choice is when she decides to have vaginal sex.

That's one choice...

It is THE choice.

Quote:
After she chooses to have sex, the point of choice has come and gone.

No, it has not, your misogynistic female dominating agenda notwithstanding.

Oooooooo - argumentum ad nastium! :2razz:

Quote:
Claiming she has "choice" after she gets pregnant is erroneous.

Not true at all. She has a choice to carry the pregnancy to term and subsequently care for a child or give it up for adoption or she may elect to have an approved medical procedure to arrest the development of the pregnancy before the moral consequence of another "person's" well being is ever introduced.

I "love" it - killing a fetus is "a medical procedure", and a fetus is a "pregnancy", meaning just a medical condition, like a disease, not possibly a human being. And neither you or anyone else knows when "personhood" is established, judicial fiat notwithstanding.

Quote:
If she "choses" an abortion, she is actually trying to escape the known possible consequences of her previous action.

No, she is choosing an approved medical procedure to end an unwanted medical condition.

"Approved" = mandated by judicial fiat, and once again a fetus is reduced to a "medical condition", just like a pimple on your nose or a hemorrhoid. You missed your career pal, you would have beem a topflight ethicist. :lol:

Quote:
Claiming that the prohibition of abortion is a negation of choice is analogous to the following. A person signs a contract to buy a house. They change their mind later but are held to the sale. They complain that they've been deprived of their choice.

That is not true. It is an erroneous comparison as no one accidentally comes into possession of a mortgage through some other activity. You are flat wrong.

BLAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAT A RIOT!! :lol: She screwed and she "accidentally" became preggers! She had NO IDEA one activity is related to the other! You're using the word "accidentally" where you should be using the word negligently.

Quote:
When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract (as is the man) in the case of a possible pregnancy.

No she isn't. Please show me this supposed contract. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Note to self: Don't try any more ethical analogies.

Quote:
Nobody forced her to do it,

That's not always true.

99% of the time.

Quote:
and she should be held to the possible consequences of the act - not the fetus.

The fetus isn't held to any consequence in the case of an early term abortion as the fetus has no inherent stake in the termination of the pregnancy.

Oh, "not dying" isn't a stake???? :lol:

It does not yet conceive of itself

sO WHAT?

and so it loses nor gains anything by the woman exerting her choice over her own body.

You are of course begging the question with the ol' "own body" falsehood and the fetus loses its life.
__________________

 

[Jerry]

Oh - you mean you aren't REALLY going to use the wire hangers feminists like to parade around with? :mrgreen:

....oh don't get me started....

 

[FallingPianos]

When a woman has sex, she is implicitly entering into a contract (as is the man) in the case of a possible pregnancy.

right here is where you are wrong. first, there is no implicit contract. second, the contract wouldn't be anymore enforcable then signing a contract to donate your left kidney to someone. if you agreed to do it for money, you'd obviously have to give the money back, but you could not be forced to give up your kidney.

 

[rivrrat]

I "love" it - killing a fetus is "a medical procedure", and a fetus is a "pregnancy", meaning just a medical condition, like a disease, not possibly a human being. And neither you or anyone else knows when "personhood" is established, judicial fiat notwithstanding.

An abortion is a medical procedure. Having a fetus growing in your womb is a pregnancy, which is a medical condition. Surely you knew that, though.

BLAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! WHAT A RIOT!! :lol: She screwed and she "accidentally" became preggers! She had NO IDEA one activity is related to the other! You're using the word "accidentally" where you should be using the word negligently.

Accidentally means that something happened that wasn't intended. It has nothing to do with knowing that it could possibly happen. When a plane crashes, it's generally an accident even though everyone on that plane (including the pilot) knew that the activity of flying in a plane could result in being in a plane crash. Likewise for automobile accidents. It's why the word accident is used. Perhaps you should look it up?

Note to self: Don't try any more ethical analogies.

Especially when they make no sense.

99% of the time.

Actually, the number would be closer to 95%, but even that is just a guess since many, many women do not report rapes.

Oh, "not dying" isn't a stake???? :lol:

If one isn't aware that one has life (and is incapable of knowing), then death removes nothing. So, if one isn't aware of life, one has no stake in it.

 

[ILDUCE]

There is a difference between response to noxious stimuli and awareness of stimuli. An amoeba responds to noxious stimuli but it is not "aware" of the stimuli. A single colon cell responds to noxious stimuli but it is not "aware" of the stimuli.

Is the amoeba biologically living?

 

[OKgrannie]

Whoa Granny, a 1947 issue of Time?? :lol: Where the hell did you get that - out of your treasured abortion keepsakes in the attic? :lol: And quoting unamed doctors and sources - sorry, I need a more believable reference.

Do you really think a doctor would put his name on a published article as an authority on abortion in 1947? Time magazine is a credible source whether you get the names of the experts or not. I also gave you: HISTORY OF ABORTION
Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort.

Now I will add:
Eileen's Abortion Debate Place
"One thing we can do with this chart is estimate the number of illegal abortions performed.

In 1973 eg there were 615,831 legal abortions and these resulted in 25 deaths and the deaths from illegal abortions numbered 21. Since in truth the abortion providers both legal and illegal were at that time pretty similar in skill we could anticipate that there were also ~600,000+ illegal abortions performed or in total ~1,200,000 abortions in 1973. There really was not an increase in the number of abortions performed by legalizing - just a huge decrease in women's deaths from them, as the skill, and surroundings in which abortions were performed, improved."

Oh - you mean you aren't REALLY going to use the wire hangers feminists like to parade around with? :mrgreen:

Do you find it amusing that desperate women died in an attempt to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy that could have been safely taken care of by medical personnel? Please read some of these doctors stories:

Voices of Choice - Transcript Excerpts