Explain Your Reasoning.

[Cloud9]

Regardless of whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, in my opinion both camps should seek to minimize abortions, and perhaps both camps would even agree that everyone stands to benefit from a decrease in the number of abortions.

- On the technicality of definitional differences: - zygote, baby, "human life", "murder" and other such demagoguery ie. "killing babies" - why stop at babies, why not "killing teenagers"? Perhaps because teenagers don't have the emotional appeal of babies.

A zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult and a geriatric are different stages of growth, and hence we have different names for them.

In any event, it does little else but have both sides dig in their heels. It certainly doesn't address the problem.

- On time: One of these things is not like the others... can you tell which?

- On the legality discussion (which Roe v. Wade settled years ago) even if overturned, it's not unlikely that it wouldn't be overturned again in a couple of decades.

- On stem cell research and scientific advances: They will minimize the influence of Roe v. Wade as one will no longer need to seek out doctors to perform abortions ie. "morning after pill".... coffee pill? natural methods?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051115/hl_nm/coffee_pregnancy_dc

- On abortions in nature (miscarriage):
http://www.webmd.com/hw/being_pregnant/hw44092.asp
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/pregcomplications/252.html
Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. Miscarriage affects about one in four women who become pregnant at some point in their lifetime.
* Of all diagnosed pregnancies, between 15% and 20% end in miscarriage in the first trimester or early in the second trimester.

* Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant because they happen so early that she goes on to get her period about on time.

- On issues of faith: (personal for each of us) though for Christians, if you read the Bible, you'll find a God that condones plenty of killing, murdering, and aborting.

I for one, cannot support a religious doctrine that would facilitate the number of abortions in this country and around the world because they denounce the use of contraceptives, and believe that to be a moral position.

- On 'potential': Throughout the course of nature, without any medical intervention (abortion, etc) we see that that potential is often not realized (ie. miscarriage, failure to thrive and reabsorption, stillbirth, etc.)

- On abstinence: Abstinence is unrealistic for most people - you can even see that in the case of priests, who've dedicated their lives to God (what greater commitment can you ask for?) and can't keep it in their pants.

I'm not particularly opposed to the pro-life stance (though I may not agree). Nor am I opposed to abstinence education as a component of an overall sex education program, (though we know from studies that abstinence education does not achieve its intended goals).

Look at teenage pregnancy in this country.... the problem needs to be addressed and abstinence education may work with 10-15%, but what of the rest?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_tee_pre&int=-1

And I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone to change their stance.

I would be interested to know why the pro-life camp doesn't focus more of its energy on those that have already been born:

1. Helping the people starving and dying throughout the world. It seems that more resources and energy are spent on the abortion battle than the people that are already with us in this world today.
http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/index.html

Interestingly, you can provide real help to those in need today, but will have little impact on changing the pro-choice camp. Legal or illegal, people will get abortions, just like they do drugs or seek prostitutes. It'll simply go underground, and may seem like less abortions, though in reality it'll just shift abortion elsewhere.

2. Advocating birth control methods which would stem pregnancies (and therefore, abortions).

Yes, I know, we've all heard it before, abstinence is the mantra. Unfortunately, we know that abstinence education is ineffective.

I guess it's more convenient to stick one's head in the sand and expect everyone to believe the same thing. That's never going to happen. So why not start looking for middle ground, work towards reducing abortions. Not just protesting, but taking real and realistic action towards sex education, birth control, adoption, and so on.

3. If birth control is a no-no, and abortion is a no-no, then offer up some suggestions as to how to improve the adoption process to facilitate quick, easy and inexpensive adoptions between parents and children.

I find the hypocrisy of religion a fascinating subject.

-They'll spend hundreds of millions building places of worship while people the world over are starving and dying.

-They'll discard a potential solution that would minimize abortions (birth control) to a problem (abortion) without thought as to consequence, or outcome - which is worse?

They won't give an inch on their beliefs (only if its convenient to the practitioner), but expect the world to change theirs.

 

[tryreading]

...discard a potential solution that would minimize abortions (birth control) to a problem (abortion) without thought as to consequence, or outcome - which is worse?

Those who are religious need to continue believing what they want to believe, as long as lawmaking is separate.

Not so long ago, in this country, birth control was illegal. Not just frowned upon by some religious sects. Does this make sense to anybody now? Anybody want to reinstate that legislation?

 

[Saboteur]

It's quite simple actually.

Women are going to have abortions, if they so choose, whether it is legal or not. And I think that women deserve to have the procedure done by a professional in a sterile environment.

 

[tryreading]

It's quite simple actually.

Women are going to have abortions, if they so choose, whether it is legal or not. And I think that women deserve to have the procedure done by a professional in a sterile environment.

Not from around here, are you?

 

[Saboteur]

Not from around here, are you?

Not sure what you mean... I am new to the forum if that's what you want to know... Also if you wonder about my nationality, I am American and pround of it!

I suppose you don't understand my opinion, though I haven't read your posting history.

What I am saying is this if you want more explanation....


Before abortion was an accepted practice women would have to go to people who weren't professionals and didn't use sterile medical instruments. This would, in some cases, cause infections and sometimes death. Now you or someone else may belive the the woman deserves that kind of fate but...

If abortions were made illeagal women would have to go back to this method of, sometimes refered to as "coat hanger", abortion. Which just gives rise to more crime. One being obvious, the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. And the second, the person who will perform the abortion.

Since, as I said above, this type of procedure could cause infection it would increase the medical costs of society, it would also cause more over crowding in prisons and perhaps in turn even more murder because either A. the police are too busy arresting women in the hospital after a boched abortion or B. People arrested for being involved in an abortion are killed in prison.

Everything has an effect and everything is linked so either way it is a bad situation.

I support choice and for women to have that choice be safe and clean. Even though it mean's death and I too do not like the idea of abortion being used as mere contraception.

Others support life, and there is nothing wrong with that, however as a result they also support having law as the cause of crime, higher taxes, and ultimately death as well... Just nastier and of someone who is aware of life.

P.S. TryReading...

Try reading The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. In it you will find that Catholics of the 13th and 14th centuries belived that the spirit or soul does not enter the body of a child until that time in pregnancy when the feotus' brain is fully developed.

 

[tryreading]

Not sure what you mean... I am new to the forum if that's what you want to know... Also if you wonder about my nationality, I am American and pround of it!

I suppose you don't understand my opinion, though I haven't read your posting history.

What I am saying is this if you want more explanation....


Before abortion was an accepted practice women would have to go to people who weren't professionals and didn't use sterile medical instruments. This would, in some cases, cause infections and sometimes death. Now you or someone else may belive the the woman deserves that kind of fate but...

If abortions were made illeagal women would have to go back to this method of, sometimes refered to as "coat hanger", abortion. Which just gives rise to more crime. One being obvious, the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. And the second, the person who will perform the abortion.

Since, as I said above, this type of procedure could cause infection it would increase the medical costs of society, it would also cause more over crowding in prisons and perhaps in turn even more murder because either A. the police are too busy arresting women in the hospital after a boched abortion or B. People arrested for being involved in an abortion are killed in prison.

Everything has an effect and everything is linked so either way it is a bad situation.

I support choice and for women to have that choice be safe and clean. Even though it mean's death and I too do not like the idea of abortion being used as mere contraception.

Others support life, and there is nothing wrong with that, however as a result they also support having law as the cause of crime, higher taxes, and ultimately death as well... Just nastier and of someone who is aware of life.

P.S. TryReading...

Try reading The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. In it you will find that Catholics of the 13th and 14th centuries belived that the spirit or soul does not enter the body of a child until that time in pregnancy when the feotus' brain is fully developed.

I don't believe I deserved all of that for a simple one-liner. See, your post was not confrontational/controversial/extreme/confusing/elongated/nasty enough, so you may be too normal for this thread.

Also, that guy Divine Comedy, he started a thread elsewhere on this site suggesting government intervention in personal family credit matters, which I am opposed to, so I'm afraid I can't read anything else he's written. Thanks anyway.

 

[Saboteur]

I don't believe I deserved all of that for a simple one-liner. See, your post was not confrontational/controversial/extreme/confusing/elongated/nasty enough, so you may be too normal for this thread.

Also, that guy Divine Comedy, he started a thread elsewhere on this site suggesting government intervention in personal family credit matters, which I am opposed to, so I'm afraid I can't read anything else he's written. Thanks anyway.

Okay,

Sorry I wrote you a novella. I did take the time to read some of your posts, very nice.

And you are right we are all here because we love to argue, Well I do anyway. So now that I know that you crave confrontational/controversial/extreme/confusing/elongated/nasty posts, I'll try to oblige in the future.

 

[tryreading]

Okay,

Sorry I wrote you a novella. I did take the time to read some of your posts, very nice.

And you are right we are all here because we love to argue, Well I do anyway. So now that I know that you crave confrontational/controversial/extreme/confusing/elongated/nasty posts, I'll try to oblige in the future.

Actually, I just scan the lengthy posts, sometimes. Some of these guys go on too long (and, just between you and me, some of them are too smart for me to argue with-although some, like Felicity, will dumb it down for me).

 

[Saboteur]

Actually, I just scan the lengthy posts, sometimes. Some of these guys go on too long (and, just between you and me, some of them are too smart for me to argue with-although some, like Felicity, will dumb it down for me).

Heh, I usually just scan the big one's too. I can go on too long as well and yes there are some really smart people here. But that won't stop me, I once unknowingly got into an argument on a digital photography site with a well known scientist.

I felt like a real heel then but now I've got quite a callus built up.

 

[Cloud9]

Here's one of the smart cookies... astrophysicist

http://www.debatepolitics.com/member.php?find=lastposter&t=5583

 

[steen]

No. Your claim is false. You have not adressed the lying liars at the PASS support forums.

As I have made no statement whatsoever about this, your claim is a lie.

 

[steen]

Did I not state the capacity for free will is part of the definition of human nature? When the two fuse, one no longer has the capacity for free will because his existence has been extinguished. He is absorbed. He HAD the capacity....then he died--granted, he died in a very unique way, but....his existence ceased.

Which one ceased existence? When sperm and egg merge, which one dies?

He WAS....then he WAS NOT

Sure he still is, as part of a whole. Nobody die, no cell ceases life function. Your claim is flat-out false.

—the change to no longer being in existence, does not eliminate what once was.

And doesn't result in anything dying, so your claim is a lie.

 

[Felicity]

Which one ceased existence? When sperm and egg merge, which one dies?
Sure he still is, as part of a whole. Nobody die, no cell ceases life function. Your claim is flat-out false.
And doesn't result in anything dying, so your claim is a lie.

I think there's a point in there...but it's hard to find amid the accusations of lying....???

 

[steen]

Well, then. If you stopped lying, we could have the rest of the points more clearly delineated.:lol:

 

[Felicity]

Well, then. If you stopped lying, we could have the rest of the points more clearly delineated.:lol:

Do you have a point?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "I think there's a point in there..."

I'm sure that the point is as I tried to explain in Messages #751 and #752. Your "human nature" philosophy doesn't work AT ALL when you try to apply it to fissioning/fusioning human-cell-clusters, and only works in terms of a SUBSET of "human nature" AFTER they stop fissioning/fusioning, and settle down for long-term growth.

 

[Donkey1499]

I can settle this all in one post. A human is a human because it can whistle, and if it can't whistle, then it's a monkey! Have you ever seen a monkey whistle? I haven't. It's impossible!!!

 

[steen]

I can settle this all in one post. A human is a human because it can whistle, and if it can't whistle, then it's a monkey! Have you ever seen a monkey whistle? I haven't. It's impossible!!!

Or better yet:

(1) Prolifers can't fly.
(2) A rock can't fly.
(3) Therefore all prolifers are rocks.

Ain't sophistry grand :2razz:

 

[Cloud9]

Felicity, I must ask the question.

If one could logically disprove the concept of "free will" would your position on abortion change? If not, why not?

 

[bishmasterb]

Felicity, I must ask the question.

If one could logically disprove the concept of "free will" would your position on abortion change? If not, why not?

But if one eliminates the idea of free will, then presumably everthing becomes predestined. And if everything is predestined, how can she choose whether or not her position will change? Either it will or it won't, she can only have the illusion of making the choice.