My thoughts on subject

[Blizzard Warrior]

Nearly ALL visits to the ER are per "should be known outcome" kind of stuff. yet, the ER remains open and treat these known risks of people's actions.
Quote:
Because treatment comes at a material expense, not at the expense of someone’s life.
Actually rather that she MIGHT get pregnant. Again, that is irrelevant. So what if they knew? the smoker knew that he MIGHT get lung cancer. The person driving knew that she MIGHT get into an accident. The dude eating chips and typing on the computer instead of exercising knew that he MIGHT get a heart attack. And yet we still treat the unwanted outcome of their voluntary actions done in full knowledge of the risks.
Quote:
We treat them because we would be losing their life, which being pro life I would have a problem with that, so we should treat it. But if the women’s life is not in danger, why should the baby die for her minor betterment, in today’s day in age, giving birth isn’t a big risk to a women’s health, at least ideally.
Mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue; not a person.
Quote:
Realistically it is a person, because it can feel (ever watched abortion videos?) mindless doesn’t mean much, people in a coma should have right to life, and isn’t it your subjective opinion what is non-sensate and non-sentient?
Ah, but there isn't "someone." But there certainly is a sentient, sensate woman with a full mind that you end up enslaving and end up taking control of her body in your moral fervor to impose your subjective beliefs as facts in her life. THAT is unethical, this desire to enslave women for the sake of mindless tissue with no more individual mind than a tumor.
Quote:
Ok hold on now, we aren’t enslaving any women (its like saying we are putting enslaving people who are put in jail and who mine rock and stuff for doing something that they knew would lead to something illegal), if she has unprotected sex then the consenting couple would know that the natural outcome will be a baby. Also if the couple are (and they should) married, then the male would also be ‘enslaved’ because he would have to care for this baby.
Ok, you are anti-women's-right-to-an-abortion. Is that better? We kind of call that "anti-choice" also.
Quote:
Lol, your and interesting person when it comes to playing with titles and grouping people.
Ah, so it is not about "life," but about "natural"? Are you saying that you refuse antibiotics because they are manufactured pills? or is it only when it comes to that woman that "natural" suddenly becomes an argument? I would suggest that you withdraw that argument as it makes you seem hypocritical.
Quote:
Lol are you calling me pro-natural? I am not saying that were talking life and death, not mere treatment.
The fetus or embryo are not "people" outside of your personal belief, driven by your personal morals.
Quote:
Who is it who decides it is NOT a person? Wouldn’t that be considered your personal belief?
AH, back to "responsible. responsible is to take control over your own situation. The woman making a choice certainly is her taking charge and thus acting responsible.

Quote:
Yes but taking charge of your own life stops when it interferes with another ones right to life.
Yes, you could. We can do all sorts of stuff. But murder directly impacts other sentient, sensate persons.
Quote:
Murder is to sensate persons, as abortion is to non-sensate persons…good one right?
"spoke off" is not the same as 'defined." if the US Supreme Court defined secular humanism as a religion, it would be in a ruling.
Quote:
Word game; this is a supreme court decision I understand the tech. behind words, but realistically wouldn’t they both be the same for arguments sake?
That would be braindead, and you would have no rights, all decisions would be made by others, yes.
Quote:
I would say that brain-dead people should have rights, they can’t make decisions but we cant take away their basic rights, like life unless they have a living will or something…I wonder why they call it a living will? Because the person is living, and should be kept living unless otherwise noted in the will…right to life don’t u think?
Like my morals to protect the basic right of women to not be enslaved for the sake of tissue.
Quote:
Enslaved is too strong a word. Not just tissue, look at it from different aspects, a naturally potential person.
Again, you could. But then the reality of the harm to a person, as defined by the law will end up affecting the law.
Quote:
Say what?
Well, yes you are right. But the issues relating to how laws are imposed and what laws can be imposed do matter as well. the law is clear that there is a constitutional "right to privacy, that people have the right to control their own bodies and bodily resources. The woman can not be forced to give bodily resources to keep an embryo alive. You can not be forced to keep a kidney patient alive.
Quote:
I am wondering where in the constitution does it say that?
Way to go, avoiding the issue of PERSONAL BODILY RESOURCES.
Quote:
Perhaps because it is irrelevant?
Hmm, so you are trying to "avoid" the religious stuff, yet call on God in your justification? Sorry, but that doesn't really work.

And if you say that it "should" be a blessing rather than a burden, then what do you do when it IS a burden?
Quote:
Refuted and avoiding me 2 completely different things, unless I am missing the reference. Why would it be a burden if the purpose of sex is to have kids…then it shouldn’t be a burden, but a blessing, if it is to have fun or w/e then use the proper methods to avoid conceiving a kid.
Because the fundie Christians are trying to force women to be the only persons who do not have the right to control their own bodily resources, to make them slaves. If they tried to make the same rule for everybody, then it would be different. But you never see them insisting that everybody have to provide bodily resources to keep even other persons alive. They yammer and cry and object to that vehemently, yet insist that the pregnant woman do just that. Such hypocrisy is evidence of the double-standard of the fundies in their goal to oppress women, to misogynistically control them. It is theocratic patriarchy at its worst.

Haha bs, they also force men not to rape women, and have control over their body part, they are as a matter of fact enslaving society to protect the lives of people, and yes the same rule applies to men, men cant have abortions either if it is illegal. That’s because it isn’t my responsibility to keep other people alive unless my active treatment of them DIRECTLY effects their survival, and besides as Christians we are called to help people (including donating organs) however abortion is an unnatural means of death, however refusing to give someone a kidney they would die naturally anyway. See the difference?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

We don't, actually. As long as the kidney patient can die just because nobody want to volunteer a kidney for him, there is no right to life.
Quote:
Yes there would be a right to life, but these rights are only grunted as far as natural events let it, it can only be extended or take away unnaturally.
but you are not arguing against medical treatment for any OTHER action. Your argument sounds very false on that background.
Quote:
Since when is abortion always a medical treatment? Its frees the women of her responsibility in an unethical manner in that it kills someone.
The cost of enslaving the woman is simply to high.
Quote:
I hate to say this but the cost of someone’s life is higher then the quality of that life, and your not enslaving anyone, the consenting couple should have been aware about the causation of their actions, and your simply making sure that the female lives up to her side of the deal, then she can give the baby to someone else, besides she doesn’t even have to give birth, they can remove the fetus and put it in care in some hospital somewhere, then its put up for adoption or for social services to take care of.
Ah, so you agree that trying to portray you at a developmental stage that is beyond your current existence is not valid. Undead corpse is not valid as you are not a corpse. hence, unborn child is not valid when there is not yet a child. That is, unless your argument is hypocritical.
Quote:
You are right it is not a child, but does that eliminate its right to life? Of course not just because I am not an adult doesn’t eliminate my right to life. Again it’s becoming a word game right now.
Nonsense. Your subjective beliefs are not reality.
Quote:
And what doesn’t make your believe subjective? Besides even if there are facts isn’t you conclusion of the facts a personal interpretation?
40 days after conception, there is an embryo and it will be quite a bit before there is a fetus. And no, at 40 days there is no survival. Viability, the time when 50% of preemies survive to one year of age is at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Quote:
Again a scientific word game, teen adult elderly they are all classifications of different levels of human development.
Complete and utter nonsense. I have no idea where you were fed these false numbers, but I would suggest you not using that as a source anymore.
Quote:
From my new pro-life/abortion site, but I don’t spew information from them I was raised in a pro abortion environment, so I have been convinced by other ways.
No more than the fetus can volunteer its body to use the woman's body against her will.
Quote:
Beciase it is dependent on the women who created it, and therefore is caring for it, in a natural way. Don’t use the kidney thing because a kidney transplant isn’t natural, but not having an abprtion is natural.
No, she isn't. Even the very existence of birth control is evidence that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Quote:
Uhh no, the very existence of birth control is evidence that people have the option to take responsibility of their sex and decided if the motive should be to produce kids or just for enjoyment.
Only if she is forced to continue the pregnancy.
Quote:
Not really forced, it would be natural, natural occurrences in this scenario I wouldn’t say are being forced. I am not being forced to life right now am I? it’s a natural thing that I am living.
A small percentage of a very high number can still be a significant number.
Quote:
And a large percentage of a very high number can be a insanely significant number, a number of mass population that were talking about, not the rare circumstances.
Not the new kids who start having sex.
Quote:
Why not they will have access to the exact if not better resources then their parents…why would their practices change if there is moral pressure?

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

I have Phyllis Schlafley's own word that women need to be biblical and be submissive to their husbands. I have her very own word that blocking access to birth control will scare girls into not having sex.
Quote:
Submissive and enslaved are 2 different words, now I am turning the tables on the word game. Again girls not women.
Evidence, please.
Quote:
I think it’s a bestseller, umm let me get the name…o I got a copy right here lets see, its called…The Holy Bible.
Sorry, Phyllis is not taking my calls, so I can't ask her.
Quote:
Lol, I don’t blame here…just kidding
But among the prolife leaders, among those who push the political agenda, your claim is not true.
Quote:
Evidence please you are using one example representing (hopefully) the minority.
What is the difference?[/quote]"Human" is a species designation, a biological term. "Person" is a legal term relating to rights, duties and privileges.
Quote:
Isn’t it your personal opinion (or whoever defined that) what the difference is between the two.
Ah, but in US, it still is not one person one vote in Congress.
Quote:
Idealistically, no but realistically yes. If there are 100 million RV’s and 40 mill. Are pro this and 60 mill. are anti this then the reps would represent about that number.
Well, because it is against the US Constitution, perhaps? You are arguing directly against what makes us Americans. As I have pointed out, rightwingers and fundies DON'T like the US Constitution because it stops them from oppressing others. You just proved me right.
Quote:
Where in the constitution please thanks.
Not really. We are back to the meaning of words here. "Being" is a biological individual. In human development, that happens at birth. The zygote MIGHT become an individual eventually, but for sure 65%+ of all zygotes never make it per miscarriages of some form or another, most often before the woman realizes she is pregnant or even before implantation.
Quote:
Again because of natural reasons, we cant blame natural reasons in this scenario can we?
Oh really? So when fundies are yammering about ethics in opposition to homosexuality, they are wrong? Glad we agree on that.
Quote:
Well their accusations are typically biblically based, also there is some evidence point out it is a choice, and sin is in the world and people have gone from compulsive stealers to not being one, gone from chronic sex freaks to not, and from being homosexual to heterosexual, also if God made you that way and you try to change this his grace and Christ dieing on the cross for our sins, were all set, but usually it’s a choice to have an abortion you aren’t destined to have an abortion or anything.
"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person, so obviously this is not true. That aside, if you really want to get into the natural/unnatural, what do you feel about medical treatment of any kind?
Quote:
Again medical treatment at the expense of another’s life is unethical, and its not even medical treatment, if the women’s life or health is not in danger.
That is such an incredibly narcissistic and elitist attitude. Clearly I can not accept it. **I** am the expert in my own life, you are not. The woman is the expert in her own life, prolifers are not. NOBODY knows what is best for another person other than that person themselves. That is the individual freedom that the US is founded on.
Quote:
No because maybe you’re seeing things from a one sided point of view, and what about absolute truth? And you are right chances are I don’t KNOW what is best for you but I have a basis of things that I can point out your error on.
Some do; the vast majority do NOT:

Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231.
Quote:
Data seems to date back to quite a while ago, and I’m not really sure how accurate or how many people or et cetera, there’s many factors which I don’t know so I can really take the data to seriously can I?
After prolifers spewed lies at them for decades? Still the vast, vast majority feels mainly relief. Go check a couple of the references above. Many of them have abstracts available on pubmed, and some even can link to the entire research on-line.
Quote:
Still the testimonies are quite heart breaking.
But then, I have never seen anything that convinced me that the embryo or fetus is a "being" to begin with. So to me, there isn't much difference. Non-sensate, non-sentient tissue is simply that.

OK I got you on this one, so the fact that YOU have never seen anything that justifies something for you mean that your right? Isn’t that YOUR subjective opinion on things and what should I be forced to follow that

 

[steen]

Nearly ALL visits to the ER are per "should be known outcome" kind of stuff. yet, the ER remains open and treat these known risks of people's actions.

Because treatment comes at a material expense, not at the expense of someone’s life.

But as the non-sensate, non-sentient fetus also is not "someone, the abortion is no different than the tumor surgery or the removal of an appendix.

Actually rather that she MIGHT get pregnant. Again, that is irrelevant. So what if they knew? The smoker knew that he MIGHT get lung cancer. The person driving knew that she MIGHT get into an accident. The dude eating chips and typing on the computer instead of exercising knew that he MIGHT get a heart attack. And yet we still treat the unwanted outcome of their voluntary actions done in full knowledge of the risks.

We treat them because we would be losing their life, which being pro life I would have a problem with that, so we should treat it.

But the lung cancer patient almost certainly will die anyway. What if it is a cut to the finger? It would merely leave a scar, no life is threatened. Yet it is treated even if the guy was playing around with knives voluntarily. So that argument simply doesn't work.

But if the women’s life is not in danger, why should the baby die for her minor betterment,

It doesn't, as there isn't any baby yet.

in today’s day in age, giving birth isn’t a big risk to a women’s health, at least ideally.

And yet around 500 women die yearly in the US alone from pregnancy complications. And if you outlaw abortions, that number will skyrocket.

Mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue; not a person.

Realistically it is a person,

Nope. "Person" is a legal term that very clearly in the Roe vs Wade decision was clarified to NOT include the unborn. So your claim is wrong.

because it can feel

Not physically possible until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. And in reality, it takes about 4-6 weeks more before it is clear that feelings and sensation actually occur. Your claim is wrong.

(ever watched abortion videos?)

Sorry, I got tired of lying fetal porn long time ago. I go with facts instead of the prolife lies. Medical facts say that you are flat-out wrong.

mindless doesn’t mean much, people in a coma should have right to life,

But then, they are not mindless. Do you KNOW what a coma is? You seem to be talking about brain-dead. And brain-dead people truly ARE mindless.

and isn’t it your subjective opinion what is non-sensate and non-sentient?

No, this is what scientific research showed.

Ah, but there isn't "someone." But there certainly is a sentient, sensate woman with a full mind that you end up enslaving and end up taking control of her body in your moral fervor to impose your subjective beliefs as facts in her life. THAT is unethical, this desire to enslave women for the sake of mindless tissue with no more individual mind than a tumor.

Ok hold on now, we aren’t enslaving any women (its like saying we are putting enslaving people who are put in jail and who mine rock and stuff for doing something that they knew would lead to something illegal),

Actually, you are talking control over her body. You are deliberately forcing her body to be used directly against her will. That sure is slavery.

if she has unprotected sex then the consenting couple would know that the natural outcome will be a baby.

Nope, because this in no way is assured. Sex is not consent to parenthood.

Also if the couple are (and they should) married,

Your moral interpretation that you have no right to inflict on them, yes.

then the male would also be ‘enslaved’ because he would have to care for this baby.

Not at all. He could refuse and go sit in the corner and not lift a finger, or he could go to Grenada or whatever. The pregnant woman has no such option. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and you prevent her from getting an abortion, then you are forcing her to give her bodily resources against her will. You are enslaving her.

Ah, so it is not about "life," but about "natural"? Are you saying that you refuse antibiotics because they are manufactured pills? or is it only when it comes to that woman that "natural" suddenly becomes an argument? I would suggest that you withdraw that argument as it makes you seem hypocritical.

Lol are you calling me pro-natural? I am not saying that were talking life and death, not mere treatment.

Actually, what you said was: "Now that patient dieing is by natural means, right to life is natural you are conceived naturally (sperm and egg) and you die naturally, that’s all ethical because ethics cant really go against a natural force. However unnatural intervention to kill a human is unethical. "

You specifically talked about natural and unnatural. Is medical treatment unnatural? Yes, or no?

The fetus or embryo are not "people" outside of your personal belief, driven by your personal morals.

Who is it who decides it is NOT a person? Wouldn’t that be considered your personal belief?

Nope. "Person" remains a legal term, and as such the law decides. The US Constitution is clarified to NOT see the unborn as a "person."

AH, back to "responsible. responsible is to take control over your own situation. The woman making a choice certainly is her taking charge and thus acting responsible.

Yes but taking charge of your own life stops when it interferes with another ones right to life.

(1) the fetus or embryo is not "another one." (2) It is very clear in the prolife movement, as well as in the real world, that there is no such right to life as allows the unwanted use of a person's bodily resources to keep that life going. Didn't I link you to the tread where this was discussed?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031

 

[steen]

Yes, you could. We can do all sorts of stuff. But murder directly impacts other sentient, sensate persons.

Murder is to sensate persons, as abortion is to non-sensate persons…good one right?

Nope, as abortion is not illegal, while murder is.

"spoke off" is not the same as 'defined." if the US Supreme Court defined secular humanism as a religion, it would be in a ruling.

Word game;

No, fact.

this is a supreme court decision I understand the tech. behind words, but realistically wouldn’t they both be the same for arguments sake?

No.

That would be braindead, and you would have no rights, all decisions would be made by others, yes.

I would say that brain-dead people should have rights,

You could. You can say anything you want to.

they can’t make decisions but we cant take away their basic rights, like life unless they have a living will or something…

Nope, the family decides.

I wonder why they call it a living will? Because the person is living, and should be kept living unless otherwise noted in the will…

But it is moot once you are braindead.

right to life don’t u think?

No, I don't.
Like my morals to protect the basic right of women to not be enslaved for the sake of tissue.[/Quote]Enslaved is too strong a word.[/quote]What would you call it if somebody came up to you and took control of your body against your will for 9 months for the purpose of using your blood and body?

Not just tissue, look at it from different aspects, a naturally potential person.

Well, that then technically would be true for sperm as well. Are we outlawing masturbation?

Way to go, avoiding the issue of PERSONAL BODILY RESOURCES.

Perhaps because it is irrelevant?

On the contrary, it is the ONLY thing that is relevant.

Why would it be a burden if the purpose of sex is to have kids…then it shouldn’t be a burden, but a blessing, if it is to have fun or w/e then use the proper methods to avoid conceiving a kid.

But much more than 50% of all abortions are after the use of contraception.

Haha bs, they also force men not to rape women, and have control over their body part, they are as a matter of fact enslaving society to protect the lives of people,

BS. You are talking about stopping people from using other PERSONS' bodies. And not about being forced to give their bodily resources against their will. That was a silly dodge.

and yes the same rule applies to men, men cant have abortions either if it is illegal.

And if you outlaw vasectomies, women can't have them either. And if the moon was made of cheese, then.... Yeah, whatever.

That’s because it isn’t my responsibility to keep other people alive unless my active treatment of them DIRECTLY effects their survival,

But somehow, it IS your responsibility to control what women do with their bodily resources? That's the typical prolife deal about wanting to force and control others, but refusing the same when it possibly could affect themselves. That's hypocrisy.

and besides as Christians we are called to help people (including donating organs)

yet, some Christians refuse to donate organs, even though this SPECIFICALLY leads to the death of people. What was that thing about feeding and clothing your brother and visiting them in jail etc?

however abortion is an unnatural means of death,

So is antibiotics. Both kill mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient cells.

however refusing to give someone a kidney they would die naturally anyway. See the difference?

Yes, you want OTHERS to be forced to give of their bodily resources but won't allow yourself to be forced to do the same thing. Yes, I see the difference.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Hey

umm i was just wondering if you were done posting ur response for now or not? but if u are i am curious that why you skipped varoius sections of my response....at first i thought u responded to everything, but now it seems like you are not....unless i just dont know how to read...but yea ttyl.

 

[steen]

Sorry, it got lost. I will deal with this tomorrow, when I have a lot more time.

 

[Felicity]

Hey

umm i was just wondering if you were done posting ur response for now or not? but if u are i am curious that why you skipped varoius sections of my response....at first i thought u responded to everything, but now it seems like you are not....unless i just dont know how to read...but yea ttyl.

You read fine, Blizz. It's not your "problem."
.
.
.
.
.
..
However...your "quote" thing is an issue and makes your post kinda hard to read...

Just cut and paste what you want to read as a quote from another poster into the reply to post box --then highlight it and then click on the little "bubble quote" icon that looks like a comic strip bubble (right next to the one with the moon and mountain) in the tools bar above the reply box. That will turn the portion selected into the little "quote box" on posts separating what you are saying from what you are quoting others as saying.......(I hope that was helpful and made sense)