Abortion: The Facts [W:83***605***]

[Cephus]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

I gave you an honest answer. If you don't believe me then on the religious forums all those rants about not being able to directly talk to God don't matter because you don't believe people you directly converse with anyway. Just a thought.

Yes, all of those claims about God made on the religious forum (which I don't read anyhow, the religious figured they had to go hide from any serious challenges to their asinine beliefs because they spent so much time losing in the philosophy forum) are totally indefensible rationally. They can't show that there is a God to talk to.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

They don't matter - they were born.....

And since 25-35% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, in fact, most fertilized eggs never implant at all, none of them were born but you don't hear anyone whining about that.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

They are equal.

That's an opinion. One that would be very nice to hold and I wish I could.

But ethically and even to a biological extent, I cannot honestly compare the unborn to the born. That's my opinion.


The reality comes into play however where it factually is not possible to *treat them equally.* And I've pointed that out. Since that seems to undermine the 'all humans are equal' argument....that's usually where a pro-life person's discussion ends.

That's fine. I can admit my less than popular position. Pro-life people rarely seem able to admit they place the unborn above women (since that is the reality, no matter how often they insist they CAN be treated equally).
.

 

[finebead]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

One of the interesting observations about this thread is how the conservative position is so pro life in the case of abortion, yet they are opposed to Obamacare which is a life saving health policy that guarantees health coverage in the case of pre-existing conditions and does not allow the insurance company (in the past, known as the "death panel") to rescind your policy if you get an expensive condition.

September 17, 2009

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

The conservative position on life in these two cases is hypocritical.

Why does the right want so badly to save the life of a fetus (who clearly is not a citizen), yet they won't stand up for a national health policy that will save the lives of many poor people in this country?

It seems they are all pro-life when they don't have to spend any money on the fetus they want to dictate the mother must carry to term and raise the child, and yet if they think some of their income tax dollars or a new fee on financial transactions will go to subsidize health insurance premiums for the poor, they are all opposed to taking the action necessary to help save their lives.

That is inconsistent, hypocritical and plain cheap. Since most of the pro life crowd is also christian, why do you want to protect the fetus (a potential person) when you won't stand up for a national health policy that will save poor people's lives? Whatever you do to the least of us, you do to me.

Is it because babies are cute and cuddly, but a poor person living on the street who has not had a bath in a month smells bad and is not cute?

If you are going to be pro life, you need to be pro life all the time.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

You're arguing in favor of elective execution of children. No insult you type can possibly affect me. You're like a muddy pig complaining about a scuf on my shoe.

You are against criminalising abortion, too - so you are in favour of 'elective execution of children', too, right?

 

[year2late]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

They are equal.

The law does not agree with you.

Once born, they are on equal footing.

Nice try.

And stop with the slave references. Slaves were born individuals. Up until birth, the pregnant woman is in charge of her body, the zygote, embryo, fetus does not have a say.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

And nobody said it was a compressed mass but you. Where do you get this stuff?

You called it a clump. A clump is a compressed mass, like scabs or calluses.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

You called it a clump. A clump is a compressed mass, like scabs or calluses.

Definition: form into a clump or mass.
"the particles tend to clump together"
synonyms: cluster, group, collect, gather, assemble, congregate, mass
"galaxies clump together"

That's a group of cells, not a compressed mass of cells.

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Going by the Slut-shaming playbook again?

She takes precautions, but knows that if precautions fail, she can resort to abortion. She also knows that YOU are not in charge of her body, she is.

If she is in charge of her body, why is she pregnant. The argument is a sham. But as the little human is dependent on her and cannot defend itself she can kill it. But, of course, might makes right in many cases.

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Were you unable to process the information of previous posts...or didnt see it...that the 86,000 death/serious harm are the ones that are not preventable or predictable? (Otherwise most would have been prevented).

And the gal has the safe, legal option of abortion if she wishes to enjoy sex....just like anyone else can...so there's no need to deprive herself of that pleasure.

It was not a question of depriving her of ecstasy. It is only the price, we are talking about.

 

[DocileLion]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

They are equal.

Not really. Making the claim that an unborn mass of cells is equal to a full-grown woman is just ignorant of science and plain common-sense.

 

[year2late]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

If she is in charge of her body, why is she pregnant. The argument is a sham. But as the little human is dependent on her and cannot defend itself she can kill it. But, of course, might makes right in many cases.

She is in charge of her body, and if in spite of birth control measures she becomes pregnant, she has a legal means to end her pregnancy. I would hope she has a means to afford higher quality birth control (assuming no medical contraindications). So yes, she has control over what she does with her body.

No sham. Sorry. Just reality is hard for you to swallow.

I am curious, do you consider any birth control methods "abortofacient" and if so which ones would you seek to prohibit?

 

[year2late]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Not really. Making the claim that an unborn mass of cells is equal to a full-grown woman is just ignorant of science and plain common-sense.

True. Ignorant of the law as well.

Heck. If folks want to go all Biblical....what was the punishment those days for causing a woman to miscarry? If a fetus was a full fledged person (Biblically speaking) you would think it would be the same punishment as murder.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Were you unable to process the information of previous posts...or didnt see it...that the 86,000 death/serious harm are the ones that are not preventable or predictable? (Otherwise most would have been prevented).

And the gal has the safe, legal option of abortion if she wishes to enjoy sex....just like anyone else can...so there's no need to deprive herself of that pleasure.

There is, and can be, no such thing as a “safe abortion”. Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. By definition, this is extremely unsafe.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

They are not equal. That is your opinion and I have pointed out that they cannot be treated equally. Why do you keep writing that? If the woman is entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (health, self-determination)...to force her to remain pregnant TAKES some or all of those things to (potentially...not even actually) provide them for the unborn.

That is not equal. And it's an ethical perspective, not just legal. I can easily explain why I believe a woman, contributing to society, is more important, IMO and more harmed, than the unborn. I can also describe the positive impacts on society that abortion enables.

You may be uninterested since you cant really argue this. You disagree with my opinion...and I dont [sic] care. It's a coherant [sic] and logical argument. If you cant do the same, fine. But I dont [sic] see why you would care about agreement (I'm pretty sure you dont. My bet is that you cant really argue it).

There is no “positive impact on society” that comes from abortion, that comes anywhere close to offsetting the deaths of thousands of innocents every day. And there is no contribution that anyone—male or female—makes to society that excuses the murder of even one innocent person.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

If she is in charge of her body, why is she pregnant. The argument is a sham. But as the little human is dependent on her and cannot defend itself she can kill it. But, of course, might makes right in many cases.

Because she isn't in control of what her cells do? Do you seriously not understand this? :roll:

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

There is, and can be, no such thing as a “safe abortion”. Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. By definition, this is extremely unsafe.

Oh honey...that is the *reason* for the abortion. The intended consequence.....to terminate a pregnancy.

And we have covered many times that that innocence is of no value...as it is the same empty innocence that a rock or a tree has....the inability to act or form intent. As soon as it it born, that emptiness starts being filled with good, evil, and everything in between.

Heck, if you are so concerned with that meaningless 'innocence,' then you should try and find a way to keep the unborn in the womb forever...since then they can remain 'innocent.' Because otherwise it ends at birth...so what's the point. Do you EVER do any self-examination and ask your self these things??? Good Lord.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

There is no “positive impact on society” that comes from abortion, that comes anywhere close to offsetting the deaths of thousands of innocents every day. And there is no contribution that anyone—male or female—makes to society that excuses the murder of even one innocent person.

What is the impact of the so-called deaths you claim? Tell us, please. Provide some information.

I can go on and on about the costs TO society of bringing unwanted, unaffordable kids in to the world....

C'mon....let's see it. How is abortion harming society?

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Definition: form into a clump or mass.
"the particles tend to clump together"
synonyms:cluster, group, collect, gather, assemble, congregate, mass
"galaxies clump together"

That's a group of cells, not a compressed mass of cells.

Thats a verb, as in "to clump".

"A clump" is a noun, which is a compacted mass: http://www.google.com/search?client...c.1.54.mobile-gws-hp..2.15.2363.3.t4g5A37qRn8

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

One of the interesting observations about this thread is how the conservative position is so pro life in the case of abortion, yet they are opposed to Obamacare which is a life saving health policy that guarantees health coverage in the case of pre-existing conditions and does not allow the insurance company (in the past, known as the "death panel") to rescind your policy if you get an expensive condition.


New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

The conservative position on life in these two cases is hypocritical.

Why does the right want so badly to save the life of a fetus (who clearly is not a citizen), yet they won't stand up for a national health policy that will save the lives of many poor people in this country?

It seems they are all pro-life when they don't have to spend any money on the fetus they want to dictate the mother must carry to term and raise the child, and yet if they think some of their income tax dollars or a new fee on financial transactions will go to subsidize health insurance premiums for the poor, they are all opposed to taking the action necessary to help save their lives.

That is inconsistent, hypocritical and plain cheap. Since most of the pro life crowd is also christian, why do you want to protect the fetus (a potential person) when you won't stand up for a national health policy that will save poor people's lives? Whatever you do to the least of us, you do to me.

Is it because babies are cute and cuddly, but a poor person living on the street who has not had a bath in a month smells bad and is not cute?

If you are going to be pro life, you need to be pro life all the time.

This thread is not about healthcare. Please take your thread-jack elsewhere.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

You are against criminalising abortion, too - so you are in favour of 'elective execution of children', too, right?

That's why you don't see me slinging insults.

#glasshouses

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

The law does not agree with you.

I know.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

Not really. Making the claim that an unborn mass of cells is equal to a full-grown woman is just ignorant of science and plain common-sense.

Science supports my position, and there's no such thing as common sense anyway.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

The reality comes into play however where it factually is not possible to *treat them equally.* And I've pointed that out. Since that seems to undermine the 'all humans are equal' argument....that's usually where a pro-life person's discussion ends.

SCOTUS calls it "competing interests". One party has to give, either the mother for 4 months or the unborn perminantly.

Between the two, the mother takes less harm, and so that is the ethical option.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Abortion: The Facts [W:83]

SCOTUS calls it "competing interests". One party has to give, either the mother for 4 months or the unborn perminantly.

Between the two, the mother takes less harm, and so that is the ethical option.

That's like saying the cow takes more harm than the hungry person, therefore the person ought to starve. :roll: