Use your opinion to help sway my decision! Help please!

[Removable Mind]

Sounds like a warped reason to use abortion as contraception.

Well...can you provide reliable data on how many women actually use abortion as a contraceptives? And, of course, what impact that has on society as a whole...or perhaps even you?

 

[WCH]

Well...can you provide reliable data on how many women actually use abortion as a contraceptives? And, of course, what impact that has on society as a whole...or perhaps even you?

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

How about abortion as birth control?

Abortion as Birth Control

 

[Removable Mind]

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

How about abortion as birth control?

Abortion as Birth Control

Good Morals Organization? That's another pro-life opinion.

According to Contracept Org...

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; non-use is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.

About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.

Alright...so? I don't believe there is a category that list: Women who had rather have abortions in lieu of using some form of contraceptive. But rather I see some women who aren't making the most responsible choice prior to having sex. But then again...it's obvious that their sex partners didn't as well.

And back to my other question. For the sake of argument, what is the social impact (but I rather know how it impacts you personally) regarding abortions being performed on women who have decided, "I'm not going to ever use a contraceptive...I'll just head to the nearest abortion clinic instead"...?

What we also know is (regardless of all possible reasons):

Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Of those: 61.8 percent were less than 9 weeks.

And I can of course go on citing statistics, but the truth is that for you. None of these statistics are important to you...at all.

You believe that a conception is a result of a sacrosanct event. So any abortion is an assault on the deity's purpose for the conception.

 

[ChezC3]

That's right. And if the woman who gave birth to you allowed that, you owe her eternal gratitude, and if she did not allow that and other people forced her, you owe her an apology for their behavior on your behalf.

Not in the slightest. IF the thought crossed her mind, she should be declared anathema, and cast from my sight. You don't apologize to murderers are to those who'd want to be.

*What's further, is the point isn't about who allowed, the point is that life is from conception, an unbroken chain til the point you are at now.

 

[minnie616]

When does human life begin?


Does it begin at conception?
Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide?
Does it begin when the fetilized egg implants ?
Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?
Does it begin when a fetus becomes conscious?
Does it begin at Birth?
Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins


Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Here are Four Different Perspectives of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf


The last one actually makes the most sense to me.
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

I also find it very interesting that a fetuses brain activity takes place right around the same time a fetus becomes viable.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks and has not changed in the last 12 years.

I think the Surpreme Court was very wise back in 1973 when they set viability as the time states could take a compelling interest in the "potential person" and NOT before.

 

[sangha]

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

How about abortion as birth control?

Abortion as Birth Control

Abortion is always a form of birth control

Have an abortion, and there's no birth.

 

[choiceone]

Not in the slightest. IF the thought crossed her mind, she should be declared anathema, and cast from my sight. You don't apologize to murderers are to those who'd want to be.

*What's further, is the point isn't about who allowed, the point is that life is from conception, an unbroken chain til the point you are at now.

I actually don't believe that life is from conception, and I never will. I refer you to the multiple views in science even today.
http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf See the section on current scientific views of when human life begins for the metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecological views.

And PS, if you would declare your mother anathema if she had not wanted to produce you, you are truly a person whom she should never have produced. But that is what I have said all along about anti-choicers - that they are inherently evil and not produced by God and are merely simulating being human beings, so that, when truth is demonstrated, they will all disappear from the universe leaving no trace whatsoever.

You are what you express. If you emphasize genetics, it's because you have no soul to express.

 

[ChezC3]

I actually don't believe that life is from conception, and I never will. I refer you to the multiple views in science even today.
http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf See the section on current scientific views of when human life begins for the metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecological views.

And PS, if you would declare your mother anathema if she had not wanted to produce you, you are truly a person whom she should never have produced. But that is what I have said all along about anti-choicers - that they are inherently evil and not produced by God and are merely simulating being human beings, so that, when truth is demonstrated, they will all disappear from the universe leaving no trace whatsoever.

You are what you express. If you emphasize genetics, it's because you have no soul to express.

Than you are blinded by your ideology. From the moment of conception until now, has been your lifespan. This is irrefutable.

So, now that I am certain of your insanity, I shall say good day.

 

[choiceone]

Than you are blinded by your ideology. From the moment of conception until now, has been your lifespan. This is irrefutable.

So, now that I am certain of your insanity, I shall say good day.

Ideology? Insanity? There were once people who believed completely that the sun revolved around the earth. They even persecuted people who did not think as they did. This false view, based upon failure to take into account the possibility that the ground on which they stood was actually moving, was eventually demonstrated to be objectively false. These people did not outlive the false view to which they clung. Though they were powerful in their day, today their names exist in history primarily as foils in relation to the people they persecuted, who spoke truth to apparent power and thus identified with a true awareness of which they are a part, a true awareness which has outlasted the bodies and genes of all the people involved.

When anyone, even me, believes something false, that person identifies with and is one with that falsehood. If the falsehood is dispelled by truth, the person identified with the falsehood disappears. The person might be able to exist without it, but only if he or she no longer identifies with the falsehood any more, in which case that person unidentified with the falsehood is a different person.

When one identifies with one's genes, one is identifying with a material concept of oneself. When one dies, one's body and even one's constellation of genes eventually decay. They can no longer represent one here, and certainly can't represent one in the universe beyond the material one. One can be indirectly represented, of course, by others' memories and the results of one's deeds and even directly represented by one's words if they survive. But all that is merely being an object without mind. So unless one identifies with something higher, which does not decay, where will one be?

If one identifies with something true and expresses it, as long as that truth is known, one is, in some measure, part of the true awareness that knows it, which outlasts the life of the body and the genes.

You seem to be the one blinded, believing that mortal life is more important than truth or true awareness, which is our true and lasting life.

 

[choiceone]

When does human life begin?


Does it begin at conception?
Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide?
Does it begin when the fetilized egg implants ?
Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?
Does it begin when a fetus becomes conscious?
Does it begin at Birth?
Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.









http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf


The last one actually makes the most sense to me.
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?

I also find it very interesting that a fetuses brain activity takes place right around the same time a fetus becomes viable.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks and has not changed in the last 12 years.

I think the Surpreme Court was very wise back in 1973 when they set viability as the time states could take a compelling interest in the "potential person" and NOT before.

Minnie, glad you cited from this link, but I don't understand why you did not also cite for the ecological view, which is basically the one that underpins Roe v Wade. ???

 

[minnie616]

Minnie, glad you cited from this link, but I don't understand why you did not also cite for the ecological view, which is basically the one that underpins Roe v Wade. ???

To be truthful I do not know how to copy and paste from a PDF file but I found the other info on an old thread here that I was able to copy and paste from. I did post the Link to the PDF file so others could read the PDF file in full.

 

[ChezC3]

Ideology? Insanity? There were once people who believed completely that the sun revolved around the earth. They even persecuted people who did not think as they did. This false view, based upon failure to take into account the possibility that the ground on which they stood was actually moving, was eventually demonstrated to be objectively false. These people did not outlive the false view to which they clung. Though they were powerful in their day, today their names exist in history primarily as foils in relation to the people they persecuted, who spoke truth to apparent power and thus identified with a true awareness of which they are a part, a true awareness which has outlasted the bodies and genes of all the people involved.

When anyone, even me, believes something false, that person identifies with and is one with that falsehood. If the falsehood is dispelled by truth, the person identified with the falsehood disappears. The person might be able to exist without it, but only if he or she no longer identifies with the falsehood any more, in which case that person unidentified with the falsehood is a different person.

When one identifies with one's genes, one is identifying with a material concept of oneself. When one dies, one's body and even one's constellation of genes eventually decay. They can no longer represent one here, and certainly can't represent one in the universe beyond the material one. One can be indirectly represented, of course, by others' memories and the results of one's deeds and even directly represented by one's words if they survive. But all that is merely being an object without mind. So unless one identifies with something higher, which does not decay, where will one be?

If one identifies with something true and expresses it, as long as that truth is known, one is, in some measure, part of the true awareness that knows it, which outlasts the life of the body and the genes.

You seem to be the one blinded, believing that mortal life is more important than truth or true awareness, which is our true and lasting life.

Uh huh...

for one to be one's self than there is no choice, there is only life. For in your view one's self is not of one's self but of the self you allow or disallow, as it were... you think yourself that higher truth, you latch on with all your might to this delusion of mind, not seeing it, blinded and convinced in your thinking you've cut through, but you are tangled within.. not knowing the difference only compounds the insanity.

 

[cpwill]

My opinion is that although I am personally against it, in the way that I would not have one, and I believe it is the killing of a human, the decision should be left up to the woman in question, as it is her body and her baby. If she can live with her choice, I can live with it, as it's not an action that I had anything to do with.

So, I am pro-choice but have an aversion to the act itself.

That's interesting. What is your opinion of slavery? Is it that blacks are human beings, sure, but its' the owners property, so it's his decision? Aversion to slavery yourself but willing to let others engage in it?

I'll admit, I don't understand the "okay so it's a human being but it's still her choice" argument. It sort of seems like, why have rights? If whether or not to violate them is left up to the person doing the violating, then the right is de facto non-recognized.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

c'mon Cee Pee lighten up by now you should know we can just make stuff up as we go along now

 

[lizzie]

That's interesting. What is your opinion of slavery? Is it that blacks are human beings, sure, but its' the owners property, so it's his decision? Aversion to slavery yourself but willing to let others engage in it?

I'll admit, I don't understand the "okay so it's a human being but it's still her choice" argument. It sort of seems like, why have rights? If whether or not to violate them is left up to the person doing the violating, then the right is de facto non-recognized.

I don't accept guilt for what someone else does. It is legal regardless of what I believe on the morality of the issue, so it becomes a matter of conscience. In our society, unborn babies have no rights regardless of how I feel about it, and if a woman has an abortion, it is her own conscience she has to deal with. If she can live with it, then I can too, as it wasn't a decision I was responsible for.

 

[cpwill]

I don't accept guilt for what someone else does. It is legal regardless of what I believe on the morality of the issue, so it becomes a matter of conscience. In our society, unborn babies have no rights regardless of how I feel about it, and if a woman has an abortion, it is her own conscience she has to deal with. If she can live with it, then I can too, as it wasn't a decision I was responsible for.

Then perhaps I misread you - are you arguing for the continuation of it's current level of legalization?

 

[lizzie]

Then perhaps I misread you - are you arguing for the continuation of it's current level of legalization?

I was just explaining my position. Abortion is legal. It's very likely always going to be legal. I think it is wrong, but it's reality, and I accept no responsibility for anyone else's decision to abort their baby. In a perfect world, people would value their unborn babies, and would do everything possible to insure that it was born, and had a decent life with a decent chance for success. We don't live in a world where women are always willing to put the life of their child at the top of their list of priorities.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Then perhaps I misread you - are you arguing for the continuation of it's current level of legalization?

you can't be just a little bit pregnant, and you can't have half an abortion :tongue4: yer either all in or yer all out (of there)

 

[choiceone]

To be truthful I do not know how to copy and paste from a PDF file but I found the other info on an old thread here that I was able to copy and paste from. I did post the Link to the PDF file so others could read the PDF file in full.

You need to have another copy of your browser or another browser that is also set to allow all the edit functions. Then, when you call up a browser while using the browser for this site, you will be allowed to highlight and copy from sites there, close that browser, and paste here. I sympathize because, when I got a new computer, it wasn't set up with an extra place from which to call up again the browser that was already being used. It took a while for me to figure it out.

Anyway, I am grateful you linked to that site.

 

[choiceone]

Uh huh...

for one to be one's self than there is no choice, there is only life. For in your view one's self is not of one's self but of the self you allow or disallow, as it were... you think yourself that higher truth, you latch on with all your might to this delusion of mind, not seeing it, blinded and convinced in your thinking you've cut through, but you are tangled within.. not knowing the difference only compounds the insanity.

Back in the late 1990's, there was a woman in her early thirties interviewed on various TV shows because she had had many plastic surgery operations. She had disliked many things about her face and body from her early teen years, and when she finished college, she went out and got the best-paying job she could find and consulted a plastic surgeon about a long-term plan for fixing them. With the surgeon, she planned the face she wanted and the body she wanted, and then, when she had earned enough money, she would have an operation and recover and when she had again earned enough, she would have another operation and recover.

The interviewers were a bit insulting (and I admit I used my money for different things). They admitted she was beautiful (drop-dead gorgeous, actually), but asked her, didn't she feel that when others complimented her on her beauty, it was strange, because it wasn't really her.

She replied that the face and body she had naturally wasn't her. They were nothing but the result of an arbitrary combination of genes that she had nothing to do with and would not herself have produced. That was her parents' doing and arbitrary biology. In contrast, the face and body she now had really were hers - she had chosen the plastic surgeon, planned the face and body, and paid for the surgeries with money she had earned by her own work, so they were the expression of the real her.

And she was right.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

And she was right.

I would say she was mentally ill. A sane person could have the same realization,
that her physical being was not the consciousness within and that surgical alteration of the outside would not change the entity that resided within.
Inner beauty is the only real beauty.
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See?

 

[choiceone]

I would say she was mentally ill. A sane person could have the same realization,
that her physical being was not the consciousness within and that surgical alteration of the outside would not change the entity that resided within.
Inner beauty is the only real beauty.
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See?

I'm having trouble understanding part of what you say. What is the consciousness within? It's my understanding that the physical being is within consciousness, not vice versa, since I don't reduce mind to brain. The surgical alteration could of course no change the mental entity, except of course, to make the unhappy, insecure, miserable woman happy, confident, grateful, and more likely to be outgoing and friendly because of those characteristics and also less likely to focus on the physical body in the future. Actually, that is a change in what you call "inner beauty," though I would just call it mental or psychic or spiritual beauty.

And FYI, if one cannot physically see, that is a much worse problem than if one can physically see and doesn't understand, because it is a whole lot easier to get an education in understanding than to get physical blindness cured in this world, where we are all so ignorant that we seem unable to just go "Zap" and cure that affliction.

 

[ChezC3]

Back in the late 1990's, there was a woman in her early thirties interviewed on various TV shows because she had had many plastic surgery operations. She had disliked many things about her face and body from her early teen years, and when she finished college, she went out and got the best-paying job she could find and consulted a plastic surgeon about a long-term plan for fixing them. With the surgeon, she planned the face she wanted and the body she wanted, and then, when she had earned enough money, she would have an operation and recover and when she had again earned enough, she would have another operation and recover.

The interviewers were a bit insulting (and I admit I used my money for different things). They admitted she was beautiful (drop-dead gorgeous, actually), but asked her, didn't she feel that when others complimented her on her beauty, it was strange, because it wasn't really her.

She replied that the face and body she had naturally wasn't her. They were nothing but the result of an arbitrary combination of genes that she had nothing to do with and would not herself have produced. That was her parents' doing and arbitrary biology. In contrast, the face and body she now had really were hers - she had chosen the plastic surgeon, planned the face and body, and paid for the surgeries with money she had earned by her own work, so they were the expression of the real her.

And she was right.

You seem to be muddling the waters a bit, self servingly so. In this example your trying to illustrate these skinbags of ours aren't ours and this is true, but then you pollute the stream with delusion when you point to the fact the lady chose her face and body with money that she worked for, thus expressing the real her.

No. That isn't the real her anymore than the skinbag she was born with. It is her monkey brain going bananas.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

no change the mental entity

hah well yeah so you've not read Maxwell Maltz: Psycho-Cybernetics (1960)
cool
any of us can change how we see ourselves and therefore how others see us as well

 

[AngryOldGuy]

It is her monkey brain going bananas.

Well said Fred :lamo