Why ban abortion??

[steen]

I was trying to think of a word that refers to both a fetus's relationship to its mother, and a born childs relationship to its mother, that hasnt gotten you upset yet.

As the two are not the same, I am not sure ther is one, other than perhaps "genetic descendant." Of course, anything that is so generalized as to fit both of these would also encompass all sorts of other things such as the hydatidiform mole. ;-)

I wouldnt call it discriminating against women,

Sure it is. The duty of giving bodily resources against one's will, placed ONLY on the pregnant woman. That very much is discrimination.

but thats probably for another debate.

It fits squarely in the abortion debate, even though pro-lifers always try to avoid acknowledging the woman as a person in her own right like everybody else, instead seeking to minimize her to the status of a self-propelled uterus.

and I'm not strictly pro-life. im ok with abortions that are done early enough in the pregnancy. I'm just pro-life compared to you, but practically everyone is.

Hmm, just because I have respect for the woman's rights? I actually take pride in that.

 

[FallingPianos]

Sure it is. The duty of giving bodily resources against one's will, placed ONLY on the pregnant woman. That very much is discrimination.

It fits squarely in the abortion debate, even though pro-lifers always try to avoid acknowledging the woman as a person in her own right like everybody else, instead seeking to minimize her to the status of a self-propelled uterus.

actually, what I mean was more along the lines of "that questions merits its own thread," and thus I have created one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=8896

pro-lifers say that a woman is obligated to let her fetus make use of her body.

but most would not say that someone has the right to force a man to donate blood even if it was to save the life of another.

is this discrimination against women?

my own opinion is that it isnt discrimination against women, but discrimination in favor of the fetus.

have at it.:duel

Hmm, just because I have respect for the woman's rights? I actually take pride in that.

I dont doubt it.

 

[Jerry]

But YOU are trying to do this to her, so it does apply.

.....and your evidence that I am doing anything other than engaging in an on-line conversation is?

nope.

LOL
Nop
yup,
nop,
yup
nop,
yup.....

But then, if the fetus was a person, would it have the right to use a woman's bodily resources against her will?

Per Roe-v-Wade, yes.

But ONLY in that situation, right?

To my knowledge abortion legislation centers on pregnant women, but I'm sure that the 14th. would extend all such legislation to men should men become pregnant.

So you ARE discriminating against the pregnant woman with a duty you want to exxcuse everybody else from, including yourself.

As I said in post 142 on "Is WalMart discriminating against women?"

steen;
"That's very hypocritical. Until a pro-lifer acknowledges such a duty on everybody rather than just the pregnant woman, then pro-lifers are cowardly hypocrites who want to force the woman into what they refuse to submit to."

Jerry;
"Since I have acknowledged such a duty 12 times already. I reaffirm my obligation to those duties. That makes 13 times now."

I now reaffirm my obligation to my duty to willingly and freely give of my bodily resorses to any fetus(s) that I may become pregnant with; with the only possable exception being in the event of said pregnancy endangering my life.
That makes 14 times now.

So the sperm and egg are dead?

I referred to a person's life, so since there is no person before conseption, any possable life-variant which the sperm and/or the egg may or may not posses are irrelevant to the point.

Rather, it mentions it.

Right. That "mentioning" is it's agreement.
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th.] Amendment."

Wade couldn't establish "personhood", so he lost. If he did establish "personhood", then it would have stopped right there. The fetus's 14th. Amend. right to live would over rule the woman's choice. The Constitution would force the woman to give of her bodily resorses against her will, unless her life were in danger.

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.

Read that again. I didn't say anything about consent to pregnancy.

Nope. As there is a medical treatment to alleviate the unwanted medical condition in the form of the medical treatment option of an abortion.

In one ear, out the other.
I'll have nothing to do with the godless and silly myth that a fetus is not a person.

You'll have to excuse me for not sharing the fascists oppressive hate mongering mentality and oppression complex.

Oh, no problem, no excuse is necessary, I don't care for liberals either.

 

[steen]

Per Roe-v-Wade, yes.

And thus, any person needing bodily resources to survive should be able to take them even against the Donor's will, right? That IS what you ask the woman to do, after all.

I now reaffirm my obligation to my duty to willingly and freely give of my bodily resources to any fetus(s) that I may become pregnant with; with the only possable exception being in the event of said pregnancy endangering my life.
That makes 14 times now.

14 times of you cowardly and lamely trying to avoid the issue of being FORCED to give bodily resources against your will. Yes, it is clear that you are so incredibly dishonest as to claim you have dealt with the issue of forced taking of bodily resources by blabbering your lame response about voluntarily giving them up, that there simply is no honesty in you, that you are a liar, plain and simple.

I referred to a person's life,

And the entities that go into that person's life are very much present before conception.

so since there is no person before conseption,

And not until 9 months after conception either

any possable life-variant which the sperm and/or the egg may or may not posses are irrelevant to the point.

Just as the life-variant of embryos or fetuses are.

Right. That "mentioning" is it's agreement.
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th.] Amendment."

And thus Blackmum doesn't deal with the conflict between a "person's" right to life and the right to not give your bodily resources against your will. Blackmum doesn't say that a person has the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will, and yet that is exactly what the pro-lifers want to impose on the pregnant woman while cowardly excusing themselves from that same duty.

Wade couldn't establish "personhood", so he lost. If he did establish "personhood", then it would have stopped right there.

No, then it would have been a different decision, and the courts instead would have to look at when persons can be forced to give their bodily resources against their will.

The fetus's 14th. Amend. right to live would over rule the woman's choice. The Constitution would force the woman to give of her bodily resorses against her will, unless her life were in danger.

No different then, that a traffic accident victim's 14th Amendment right to life overruling your choice to not give blood. Giving blood is safe, leaves no permanent damage to your body and save lives. So you should be FORCED to give blood.

Read that again. I didn't say anything about consent to pregnancy.

You portray the knowledge of risk of pregnancy as a duty to not abort.

In one ear, out the other.
I'll have nothing to do with the godless and silly myth that a fetus is not a person.

yes, you clearly reject factual evidence that proves your lame and contrived argument wrong. We all know that pro-lifers lie in this fashion and lies a lot. You are a stellar example.

 

[Jerry]

You're trying to change the subject by deliberately misrepresenting you're opponent's argument.

.....and you accuse others of deception.....and you accuse others of hypocrisy.

The pro life movement is about acknowledging the unborn's inherent, self evident humanity.

Stop strawmanning and stay on point.

And thus, any person needing bodily resources to survive should be able to take them even against the Donor's will, right? That IS what you ask the woman to do, after all.

Roe-v-Wade wasn't about "any person". It was about a pregnant woman and the fetus within her.

14 times of you cowardly and lamely trying to avoid the issue of being FORCED to give bodily resources against your will. Yes, it is clear that you are so incredibly dishonest as to claim you have dealt with the issue of forced taking of bodily resources by blabbering your lame response about voluntarily giving them up, that there simply is no honesty in you, that you are a liar, plain and simple.

:rofl
See everyone, this is why it is pointless to argue with liberals: 14 times now I have accepted the responsibilities and duties which I would like to see pregnant women held to, and this liberal still insists on uttering evil falsely against me.

And the entities that go into that person's life are very much present before conception.

When there is a someone who wishes to establish sperm or an egg as a person, perhaps then such "entities" will become relevant.

And not until 9 months after conception either

That's where we disagree, yes.

Just as the life-variant of embryos or fetuses are.

That is where we disagree, yes.

And thus Blackmum doesn't deal with the conflict between a "person's" right to life and the right to not give your bodily resources against your will. Blackmum doesn't say that a person has the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will, and yet that is exactly what the pro-lifers want to impose on the pregnant woman while cowardly excusing themselves from that same duty.

Once again you are deliberately misrepresenting your opposition's argument. Blackmum clearly says that if the issue of "personhood" is established, than Roe's case colapses because the fetus would then be protected by the 14th.

No, then it would have been a different decision, and the courts instead would have to look at when persons can be forced to give their bodily resources against their will.

I don't see any mention of "use of bodily resources" in Roe's legal arguments. Perhaps if you could point such an argument out to me I could see your argument as at least somewhat relevant.

No different then, that a traffic accident victim's 14th Amendment right to life overruling your choice to not give blood. Giving blood is safe, leaves no permanent damage to your body and save lives. So you should be FORCED to give blood.

Roe-v-Wade did not cover giving blood, car accidents or similar. Roe-v-Wade was about a pregnant mother and the fetus within her.

You portray the knowledge of risk of pregnancy as a duty to not abort.

I said that, with the exception of "extenuating circumstances" such as rape, since the woman is the one ultimately in controle of herself and the possibility of a pregnancy, if anyone is discriminating it is her and no one ells.

yes, you clearly reject factual evidence that proves your lame and contrived argument wrong. We all know that pro-lifers lie in this fashion and lies a lot. You are a stellar example.

That scientific factual evidence proves the existence of a new dependant individual person upon conception. Science proves the pro life argument and rules out the pro choice argument by showing the existence of this new dependant individual person upon conseption.

The idea that something which so obviously a dependant individual is somehow not, is rediculise and absurd on it's face.

Ive seen cartoons with more credibility and substance than the notion that the unborn is somehow not a person, so since I do not give credence to cartoons, nor will I give credence to the idea that the unborn is somehow not a person. That idea is silly, it is godless, and science has already ruled it out.

 

[steen]

Roe-v-Wade wasn't about "any person". It was about a pregnant woman and the fetus within her.['/quote]Ah, so THAT is the source of your lame evasion and hypocritical denial of having the same duties as you want to impose on her?

:rofl
See everyone, this is why it is pointless to argue with liberals: 14 times now I have accepted the responsibilities and duties which I would like to see pregnant women held to, and this liberal still insists on uttering evil falsely against me.

I see that you are STILL spewing lies like the dishonest prolifer you are.

Once again you are deliberately misrepresenting your opposition's argument. Blackmum clearly says that if the issue of "personhood" is established, than Roe's case colapses because the fetus would then be protected by the 14th.

I am not misrepresenting. I am stating, as did Blackmum and does you, that if the fetus was a person, then that specific lawsuit would not be an issue. Obviously, then the issue would be whether a person can use another person's bodily resources against their will.

Roe-v-Wade did not cover giving blood, car accidents or similar. Roe-v-Wade was about a pregnant mother and the fetus within her.

And you cowardly hide behind this as an excuse for not admitting that YOU are refusing the forced duty of giving bodily reoiyrces to others that you are trying to force the woman to do. Such hypocricy.

I said that, with the exception of "extenuating circumstances" such as rape, since the woman is the one ultimately in controle of herself and the possibility of a pregnancy, if anyone is discriminating it is her and no one ells.

And you repeating that lie doesn't make it right, it merely further establishes you as a liar.

That scientific factual evidence proves the existence of a new dependant individual person upon conception.

Science doesn't prove personhood, so you are again LYING!!!!

Science proves the pro life argument and rules out the pro choice argument by showing the existence of this new dependant individual person upon conseption.

You are lying. Show your scientific evidence for your outright lies.

The idea that something which so obviously a dependant individual

OProve that individuality that you lie about here.

is somehow not, is rediculise and absurd on it's face.

Ah, so THAT is your defense of your lie? No evidence, only pro-life blabbering nonsense?

Ive seen cartoons with more credibility and substance than the notion that the unborn is somehow not a person,

As Roe vs Wade directly disproves your claim, your argument is ridiculous.

so since I do not give credence to cartoons, nor will I give credence to the idea that the unborn is somehow not a person.

Yes, pro-l;ifers often lie and then ignore factual evidence opf their lies. In that sense, you are no different than the other lying pro-lifers.

That idea is silly, it is godless,

Nope. More lies.

and science has already ruled it out.

Ah, and for good measure, you finish off with another lie. Are you at all able to post without lying?

 

[talloulou]

Steen you didn't shoot down the whole constitution thing about protecting the welfare of our posterity:rofl

 

[Fantasea]

I believe more women choose to kill their unborn babies today since it is legal and socially acceptable. When it was not legal and completely socially unacceptable it was done much less by far.

I seem to recall reading the arguments of the 1970s abortion proponents who cited a figure of about 10,000 illegal abortions being performed each year as justification for a safe, legal procedure.

In the 33 years since Roe v. Wade, the total of "legal" US abortions is approaching 50 million. It doesn't take a mathematician to confirm that your belief is correct.

 

[Fantasea]

Could you give a link to some of those numbers please?

The term "back alley abortions" did not refer to the procedure being performed in an alley, which, on its face, would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

The reference was to the fact that expectant mothers seeking to end a pregnancy entered and left the doctor's office by a back door (which often led to an alley behind the building) in order to preserve privacy, rather than sit in a waiting room filled with other patients, one of whom would undoubtedly be the neighborhood busybody.

 

[Sir_Alec]

What is the point? 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.

In a perfect world there would be no abortions or at least very few on special conditions such on medical grounds. But we are imperfect as a species, so we live in an imperfect world. Wiping out abortion may be impossible, but we can lessen the number of abortions.

1. Adoption reforms to make the adoption process more efficient. There are alot of childless couples waiting to adopt. (I include homosexuals in this as well). Run a campaign persuading women to give birth and consider adoption.
2. More sexual awareness. Treating sex like a taboo is gonna result in the teenager rebelling - just like smoking. Studies report that more sexual aware a country is, the smaller the teenage pregnency rate. The Netherlands has one of the smallest abortion rate and teenage pregnency rate in Europe and it is legal to have sex at 14 there. I know some of you want to keep your teenagers innocent and in denial. But this is the real world.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

 

[Indy]

A quote by Jerry:

"According to About.com, in 1973 there were 774,600 abortions. This number has gon up tremendously, to 1,365,700 abortions in 1996."

I'm just currious but what was the overal population increase in the nation during that time. Do you perhaps think that that would also have to do with the number going up?

That's like saying that because I was able to buy a car in 1973 for $6000 brand new and now in 2006 it cost me $23,000 that it cost more to make a car these days. Not true, its just a thing called inflation. The same holds true to population increases. I bet murder also went up. Does that mean that it was caused by the legalization of abortion?

 

[jimmyjack]

A quote by Jerry:

"According to About.com, in 1973 there were 774,600 abortions. This number has gon up tremendously, to 1,365,700 abortions in 1996."

I'm just currious but what was the overal population increase in the nation during that time. Do you perhaps think that that would also have to do with the number going up?

That's like saying that because I was able to buy a car in 1973 for $6000 brand new and now in 2006 it cost me $23,000 that it cost more to make a car these days. Not true, its just a thing called inflation. The same holds true to population increases. I bet murder also went up. Does that mean that it was caused by the legalization of abortion?

Inflation is a persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

A huge increase in abortions is in no way comparable to the effects of inflation; your comparison is very weak and incompatible.

 

[Indy]

Inflation is a persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

A huge increase in abortions is in no way comparable to the effects of inflation; your comparison is very weak and incompatible.

How is it weak and incompatible? Instead of playing the word game why don't we try to look at the point I was making. Here's an example (Note: these numbers are completely made up and are only used to illistrate my point):

Population in 1970: 100
Abortions in 1970: 10
Abortions per capita: .1

Population in 2006: 150
Abortions in 2006: 13
Abortions per capita: .086

Now in the above example the total number of abortions (i.e. the statistic that was thrown around earlier) increased, but as you could also see the total population increased at a higher rate thus reducing the abortions per capita. Does that mean that abortions are on the rise or on the decline? I would take that to mean that they are on the decline (although not by much admitedly but then again they were just make believe numbers).

Now, not to get you into a rant Jimmyjack but can you now answer my question as to what the abortions per capita numbers were in the two years being discussed? I think that would be a much better statistic to throw around rather than the total number abortions which we can see is pretty worthless by itself. Also, can you answer my question about the murder rate. If there are more total number of murders in the nation in 2006 than in 1976 does that mean that it's attributed to Roe vs. Wade? No. So can we stop trying to tie the legalization of abortions to the current state of our society?

 

[jimmyjack]

The amount of abortions has increased.

Would you claim a war today that sees as many die as in ww2 less significant because of the deaths per capita?

 

[Indy]

All I can say is... and I quote:

your comparison is very weak and incompatible.

 

[jimmyjack]

All I can say is... and I quote:

your comparison is very weak and incompatible.

No, the comparison is accurate since it deals with deaths not money and it is comparable because I compare like for like.

 

[Indy]

What I was getting at is that just saying that Abortions have increased is a bogus statement. Abortions would have increased reguardless if it was made legal or not. More people exist in the USA therefore more people would have gone to underground abortions, or since they are legal, more people have gone to abortion clinics. Just saying that abortions have increased and then acting like you won the argument doesn't do anything for your cause but makes you look like a less reliable source of info.

 

[talloulou]

What I was getting at is that just saying that Abortions have increased is a bogus statement. Abortions would have increased reguardless if it was made legal or not. More people exist in the USA therefore more people would have gone to underground abortions, or since they are legal, more people have gone to abortion clinics. Just saying that abortions have increased and then acting like you won the argument doesn't do anything for your cause but makes you look like a less reliable source of info.

Do you honestly believe that there would be as many abortions performed in the US today if abortion was never made legal? You don't think that the fact that abortion is legal and socially acceptable helped abortion rates rise? Luckily advances in birth control and contraceptives seem to be bringing the rates down a little....hopefully that trend will continue.

 

[steen]

Do you honestly believe that there would be as many abortions performed in the US today if abortion was never made legal?

Do you honestly believe that there would have been as many abortions if so many pro-lifers weren't fighting against birthcontrol, sex-ed and support for single mothers?

How many abortions do you think are caused by such conservative policies?

 

[Indy]

Do you honestly believe that there would be as many abortions performed in the US today if abortion was never made legal? You don't think that the fact that abortion is legal and socially acceptable helped abortion rates rise? Luckily advances in birth control and contraceptives seem to be bringing the rates down a little....hopefully that trend will continue.

No, I concede to the possibility that legalizing abortion raised the percapita numbers a bit. Do I think that it was drastic? No. Also, it isn't an issue for me whether or not the percapita numbers do increase, personally I am pro-choice because I see it as a freedom from religion issue. The only reason that I was arguing my point though was to shed some light on the fact that if people want to throw numbers around then they need to be able to understand WHAT they are throwing around first. Pointless statistics don't do anything but mislead those who you are showing them to. That was all.

 

[Fantasea]

Do you honestly believe that there would have been as many abortions if so many pro-lifers weren't fighting against birthcontrol, sex-ed and support for single mothers?

Were it not for the resistance to abortion, the nearly fifty million US abortions would probably be nearing one hundred million and that would please you immensely, I'm sure.

How many abortions do you think are caused by such conservative policies?

Absolutely none. These activities contribute to a reduction in the number of abortions.

You asked for belief and you got it.

Of course, I know that you believe otherwise.

 

[FallingPianos]

How many abortions do you think are caused by such conservative policies?

Absolutely none. These activities contribute to a reduction in the number of abortions.

You asked for belief and you got it.

Of course, I know that you believe otherwise.

man, i wish I could find this one study... I'm pretty sure it was done by the alan guttmacher institute. it analysed the reduction in teen pregnancies, and attributed 25% to abstinence education, and 75% to contraceptive education. does anyone here know what study I'm talking about? I've been trying to find it again, and am not having much luck.

I realise that a reduction in pregnancies is not the same thing as a reduction in abortions, but if all other variables are made equal, the number of abortions do go down.

*edit*

I found some information about the study, though not a direct link to the study itself:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...info/teensexualhealth/fact-teen-pregnancy.xml
Increased Use of Contraception Accounts for 80 Percent of the Recent Decline in Teenage Pregnancy

The rate of teenage pregnancy in the United States has been declining — between 1990 and 1996 it decreased from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19 to 97 per 1,000, a drop of 17 percent (AGI, 1999a).

A flawed report commissioned by the so-called Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, an anti-choice organization, concluded that the recent decline in adolescent pregnancy and childbearing is a result of higher levels of sexual abstinence among American teens. The authors attribute this increase in abstinence in part to abstinence-only education (Jones et al., 1999). However, this study draws its conclusions from incomplete and non-comparable data, rendering the findings invalid (AGI, 1999b).

The Alan Guttmacher Institute investigated the decline in teenage pregnancy using data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the major source of government data on population and reproductive health. The NSFG data show that the decline in teenage pregnancy rates has occurred primarily among sexually experienced teens. The fact is that sexually active teenagers are learning to use contraception more frequently and more effectively, and they account for 80 percent of the decline in teenage pregnancy rates (Saul, 1999)...

Saul, Rebekah. (1999). "Teen Pregnancy: Progress Meets Politics." The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2(3), 6-9.

the other sources referenced are on the page as well.

*yet another edit*

found it: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/02/3/gr020306.pdf

 

[steen]

You asked for belief and you got it.

Yup. Just wanted to see how out-of-touch with reality that pro-lifers are. Plenty, it turns out.

Of course, I already knew that about you. What I am curious about is Talloulou's view on this.

 

[talloulou]

Yup. Just wanted to see how out-of-touch with reality that pro-lifers are. Plenty, it turns out.

Of course, I already knew that about you. What I am curious about is Talloulou's view on this.

My view on what? On whether lack of sex ed contributes to pregnancy? I'd say yeah it probably does. And at least by Jr. high all kids should be getting sex ed at school. I believe education is power. I'd rather see more women not getting accidently pregnant in the first place. I also think birth control could be cheaper. I realize you can get it free from planned parenthood if you fall in at a certain income level but I still hear college girls complaining about how expensive it is and many don't want to buy it through their parents health insurance.

I also know many prolifers don't like that I see the MAP as okay. But I figure that it is used early enough that the fertilized egg is most likely not implanted and furthermore it's early enough to not offend my delicate sensibilities which I know is unimportant to anyone but me. However isn't the MAP just strong doses of regular birth control? So how could I be against that?

Furthermore I'd fight less to have abortions banned if the numbers were drastically reduced and the prochoice movement adopted language that was more respectful of human life and had a better tone that admitted abortion is the killing of a human being. I think adopting a tone or language that greatly devalues human life is bad for society.

Also I think more prochoicers would except some regulations if they were certain that a mile wouldn't be taken if they give an inch.

With that said I think it is quite possible we could reach something that suits everyone. Something in the middle. Abortion doesn't have to be completely banned vs completely available on demand at any and all stages of development.

I'd personally like to see an end to all surgical abortions....I think they are a nasty ugly business that is not good for society. However if we could get the numbers greatly reduced, and more limits on the gestational age at which abortion is legal I might shut up a bit.

And I think the bibles should be closed when discussing the topic. You don't need a bible to know that killing humans is inherently wrong and best avoided whenever possible.

 

[FallingPianos]

it analysed the reduction in teen pregnancies, and attributed 25% to abstinence education, and 75% to contraceptive education.

I should correct this statement. it attributed 20 percent to increased abstinence in teens, and 80% to increased contraceptive use.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/02/3/gr020306.pdf
page 7:
The AGI analysis concludes that about 80% of the decline in overall teenage pregnancy rates since the late 1980s reflects this improved contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers. At the same time, it also confirms a decline—or, at least, a leveling off—in the proportion of teenagers who have ever had sexual intercourse. Between 1988 and 1995, the proportion of teenage women 15–19 who said they had ever had sex dropped one percentage point, from 52.6% to 51.5%. About 20% of the decline in the overall teen pregnancy rate is attributable to this increased abstinence.