- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,688
- Reaction score
- 631
- Location
- Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
GarzaUK said:Even if abortion is illegal it will be still carried out, only in back alleys with coathangers. Procedures that might kill not only the life inside the woman but the woman herself.
GarzaUK said:Wiping out abortion may be impossible, but we can lessen the number of abortions.
Korimyr the Rat said:Well, as much as I agree with you, I don't think this argument holds water.
While abortions occur regardless of laws prohibiting them, so do murders-- and the basis of anti-abortion arguments is that killing an unborn child is murder. We can't use the atrocious murder rate as justification to repeal laws prohibiting it.
Also, statistics show that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed medical doctors in a clinical setting. "Back alley abortions" are practically a myth, with the rare exceptions more attributable to poverty and stupidity than to legal status.
I agree with this for no other reason than to create more children for infertile couples to adopt and to bolster our birth rates. Also... abortion is generally wasteful compared to more preventative forms of birth control.
I also agree with your proposed reforms. Regarding your comments about "innocence and denial"... I think that's the major problem with conservative politics in the US right now. Conservatives take an admirable stance concerning the government's role in promoting morality and responsibility... but they do so in willful ignorance of reality.
They are attempting to deal with the world as they want it to be, instead of how it actually works.
star2589 said:liberals can be just as willfuly ignorant. especially concerning economics.
star2589 said:it seems to me that the general trend, is that conservatives are more concerned with the process for solving problems, then the outcomes itself.
star2589 said:ok, that was a tangent. I just always feel the need to bring such things up when people blame the conservative movement or the liberal movement, for things that are really much more universal.
Korimyr the Rat said:I'd also point out that "liberals"-- or the moderate Left-- are generally not as ignorant of economics as they are portrayed to be. They're willing to accept some economic loss in exchange for security and protection of what they believe to be basic rights. Some "socialistic" policies are also economically effective, such as public schooling, public transportation, and public healthcare.
Of course, as you go farther Left and start entering social democrat-- or Green-- territory, you start seeing people who don't understand the effectiveness of economic inequality or people who engage in blatant class warfare.
Korimyr the Rat said:Yes. This is the basis of my objection-- they promote specific moral ideals over beneficial results. Since I don't generally agree with their specific moral ideals-- since they're derived from a religion I do not follow-- and I believe that the purpose of the government instilling moral values is to promote beneficial results, I find their efforts to be particularly frustrating.
mnpollock said:I am so glad to FIANALLY stumble upon a thread where everybody speaks politely to each other and there isn't any name calling etc. Really everybody, thanks for that. With that said:
I agree with most of the previous posts. I truelly think that if there was any way to join together the moderate republicans and the moderate demacrats into one "Purple?" party that the nation would be better off. The FAR right believe that absolutely no abortion should be allowed and all who practice it should be put to death like their unborn children, the FAR left believe that all abortions should be leagle up until the actual birth happends no matter how developed the child is. Both sides are rediculous. The truth of the matter is (even though I'm sure somebody will debate this) that the majority of americans agree with birth control, sex education, and early term abortions including and not limited to the morning after pill. Personally I think to debate that issue would show the debaters utter failure to grasp reality.
I also think that most americans are against extreme late term abortions and partial birth abortions. In a rape or incest case there is no excuse that the person can not get an abortion in the earlier terms of her pregnancy and to wait that long is kinda her fault. End of story.
Now, I believe those are the opinions of most of America (i.e. the moderates), whether or not I believe in them should hold no bearing to the subject at hand. Which leads me to my next point.
Since there even IS a debate on this (once again from both extreme poles of the political spectrum) means that no legislation should be made or even attempted on banning all abortions or allowing partial birth abortions. Doing so is nothing short of trying to force the minorities viewpoint onto the majority which is NOT how a demacratic system is intended to work.
If you don't like abortion, fine. If your religeous views don't allow you to practice birth control or abortion, fine. If you think that all people who have an abortion or take part in one are going to hell, also fine. BUT, do not try to force your viewpoints onto the majority that obviously does not folow suit. DO NOT PRACTICE IN WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. End of story. Just because it is legal to practice abortion does not mean that you have to. Why must other's practice your religon if they do not believe the same as you?
And for those who are trying to make the point that they are the "voice" of those unborn children who cannot speak for themselves, do so through counceling and persuation, not through brute force and scare tactics. It is far easier to talk to people and try to convince them to your way than it is to fight them into submission.
And lastly (I promise :2razz: ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not. I believe that it will hurt the cause more than help. In this day and age of medicine, do we truely believe that abortion drugs from other countries will not find their way into this country through gangs and mobs?
Once again, thanks for keeping this discussion civil and I would like to hear some opposing viewpoints on the matter and whether or not they believe we can come to a compromise. Or perhaps do you believe that there can be no compromise on this issue?
Just my two cents.
Could you give a link to some of those numbers please?Korimyr the Rat said:Also, statistics show that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed medical doctors in a clinical setting. "Back alley abortions" are practically a myth, with the rare exceptions more attributable to poverty and stupidity than to legal status.
I observed the inherent, self-evident humanity of the unborn long before I accepted Christ, so please do not assume that opposing abortion is a religious practice or is derived purely from religious views.End of story said:If you don't like abortion, fine. If your religeous views don't allow you to practice birth control or abortion, fine. If you think that all people who have an abortion or take part in one are going to hell, also fine. BUT, do not try to force your viewpoints onto the majority that obviously does not folow suit. DO NOT PRACTICE IN WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. End of story. Just because it is legal to practice abortion does not mean that you have to. Why must other's practice your religon if they do not believe the same as you?
Jerry said:Could you give a link to some of those numbers please?
Ah, thank you for that. It seems that neither side is impervious to extreme emotional actions.Korimyr the Rat said:Yes, if you'll give me awhile to dig it up. It's not one of my pet arguments-- I've seen the evidence attached to pro-life refutations of the "rusty coathanger" scare tactic.
edit: http://www.ylcss.edu.hk/Intranet/E-Class/life/CHAPTERS/F-07.HTM#sect7
Pardon the source; it's obviously biased towards a right-to-life position, but it's also annotated and sourced. The numbers add up and their reasoning is relatively sound.
Jerry said:I mean, if a woman were placed in the position where she had to choose between carrying out a healthy pregnancy or seriously endangering her health, even her life, why is the result of her decision to go with the coat hanger placed on anyone other than herself?
I thought that this whole thing was a matter of privacy. It was her choice. If those 2 things are true, then she has no one to blame for her self mutelation but herself.
GarzaUK said:What is the point? Even if abortion is illegal it will be still carried out, only in back alleys with coathangers.
mnpollock said:And lastly (I promise :2razz: ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not.
According to About.com, in 1973 there were 774,600 abortions. This number has gon up tremendously, to 1,365,700 abortions in 1996.mnpollock said:And lastly (I promise ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not.
But per the last CDC evaluation of this, almost 60% of abortions were after msome form of contraceptive failure. Now, some of this is per the imperfect use and may be helped by sex-ed, but not all of it.talloulou said:I think with condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill there should be no need for surgical abortions except when the mothers life is endanger and I don't consider myself to be an extremist.
So can you give any example where a person can force another person to give them their bodily resources against their will? WHy does the personhood even matter? I certainly don't have the right to take your bodily resources against your will, even if I would die otherwise, and even if it would be of no consequense to you.Jerry said:I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your ideological opposition. Pro life sees the unborn as a person. Ending it's life is no more or less justifyable than ending your's or mine.
yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?Pro life sees that there are 2 people physically involved in the pregnancy: the mother and the unborn. It is not a matter of what a woman can do with her own body, it is a matter of what a woman can do with someone ells's body. That someone ells being, as I said, the unborn.
steen said:yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?
Hmmm......the fetus doesn't "force" it, so pregnancy doesn't apply.....I think that military people can be ordered to do this.steen said:So can you give any example where a person can force another person to give them their bodily resources against their will?
The constitution only applies to "persons". See Roe-v-Wade section 9a.WHy does the personhood even matter?
You would have the right to use my bodily resources against my will if I were pregnant with you, because I would be in error if I did not wish to freely give it, and you, being unborn, are innocent of all crime, in all ways.I certainly don't have the right to take your bodily resources against your will, even if I would die otherwise, and even if it would be of no consequence to you.
Divelopmental stages are irrelevant. A person's life begins at conseption.With such a low standard for bodily autonomy, why would fetal personhood matter at all?
yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?
Well, there really isn't an "offspring" until it has sprung off, been born.star2589 said:it is discriminatory. I discriminate between people who don't take care of strangers, and people who dont take care of their offspring.
But YOU are trying to do this to her, so it does apply.Jerry said:Hmmm......the fetus doesn't "force" it, so pregnancy doesn't apply.....
nope.I think that military people can be ordered to do this.
But then, if the fetus was a person, would it have the right to use a woman's bodily resources against her will?The constitution only applies to "persons". See Roe-v-Wade section 9a.
But ONLY in that situation, right? So you ARE discriminating against the pregnant woman with a duty you want to exxcuse everybody else from, including yourself.You would have the right to use my bodily resources against my will if I were pregnant with you, because I would be in error if I did not wish to freely give it, and you, being unborn, are innocent of all crime, in all ways.
So the sperm and egg are dead?Divelopmental stages are irrelevant. A person's life begins at conseption.
Rather, it mentions it.I thought that you knew that that is the point upon which pro life and pro choice disagree. If I were to accept your premis that a person's life does not begin at conseption, but at, say, 22-24 weeks allong, then I would have the pro choice conclusion that abortion is strictly a woman's medical privit matter.
The Supreme Court even agree with that point.
Nonsense. She no more consent to pregnancy than smokers consent to lung cancer. So until you object to the removal of tumors, that argument is hypocritical.Not withstanding extenuating circumstances, it is the woman who decides rather she will expose herself to becoming pregnant. Since she is the one who makes that distinction, if anyone is discriminating, it is she.
Nope. As there is a medical treatment to alleviate the unwanted medical condition in the form of the medical treatment option of an abortion.As it is, if you see any unfairness here, it is assigned by nature, not man.
You'll have to excuse me for not sharing the fascists oppressive hate mongering mentality and oppression complex.You'll have to excuse me for not shering the liberal's victim mentality and persecution complex.
steen said:Well, there really isn't an "offspring" until it has sprung off, been born.
steen said:And I am happy that at least ONE prolifer has the guts to admit that they are discriminating against the woman as compared to the duties they place on everybody else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?