Why ban abortion??

[steen]

My view on what? On whether lack of sex ed contributes to pregnancy? I'd say yeah it probably does...... I also think birth control could be cheaper.......

So we are in agreement.

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.

The moment pro-lifers cease their revisionist linguistic hyperbole, falsehoods and emotional histrionics, that won't be an issue.

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.

As long as medical judgement is not overruled, you mean?

With that said I think it is quite possible we could reach something that suits everyone.

You haven't addressed the needed support for the pregnant woman and new parents"?

 

[MSgt]

Ban? Did abortion break the forum rules?

 

[talloulou]

You haven't addressed the needed support for the pregnant woman and new parents"?

Yes and while we are at it I think it be great to figure out a way to teach more women to choose the fathers of their babies more wisely.:rofl

But seriously I do think we have to somehow work on the problem of poverty in our country. I just don't know how you do that. It would be nice if families could get help without the man splitting. Oddly it seems the current system is set up so a woman will actually get more help if her man up and leaves her or at least pretends to be gone which seems very counter-productive and anti-family to me.

 

[FallingPianos]

Oddly it seems the current system is set up so a woman will actually get more help if her man up and leaves her or at least pretends to be gone which seems very counter-productive and anti-family to me.

whats so odd about it? the women that need the most help get the most help.

 

[talloulou]

The moment pro-lifers cease their revisionist linguistic hyperbole, falsehoods and emotional histrionics, that won't be an issue.

That's why I try to call both sides on it but I must admit I do it myself as well. Sometimes you just get so frustrated with the crap others spew you start vomiting out bile yourself. :rofl But yeah both sides need work on this.

As long as medical judgement is not overruled, you mean?

Yes obviously if a dr. thinks a women should not continue her pregnancy due to the saftey of her physical health or even due to severe mental issues then I think the drs. judgement should not be over-ruled. In situations where the mother is healthy I think we could probably limit abortions and completely do away with mid-late term abortions. Why not?

Also there is the subject of the fetus that has medical issues. I'm really not sure where I stand on that. I don't like the idea of aborting babies who might have problems but some problems are really severe. When I was pregnant with my daughter they thought she might have down syndrome. They wanted me to have an amnio...so they could tell for sure but I declined 'cause I figured I wasn't gonna abort her anyway and I didn't want to risk any complications from the ammnio and she turned out just fine with no down syndrome or any other problems. But because of that experience I learned a ton about down syndrome and the idea that many would choose to abort a down syndrome baby saddens me but I can sympathize with it and so I basically don't know what I think in that regard and perhaps that is best left up to the parents as these babies would be hard to adopt out. So that's a grey area for me but I really hate the idea of it all together.

 

[talloulou]

whats so odd about it? the women that need the most help get the most help.

Yes but if a women can get more money without a man around then what's the incentive to keep the family together? It's not very pro-family and that's a shame 'cause policies geared to help kids should be pro-family.

 

[FallingPianos]

Yes but if a women can get more money without a man around then what's the incentive to keep the family together? It's not very pro-family and that's a shame 'cause policies geared to help kids should be pro-family.

thats true, but it applies too virtually all forms of government aid. public education doesnt encourage parents to work harder to pay for private education, welfare doesnt encourage people to get jobs, etc.

but the alternative is that the people that need help the most, wont be able to get it. I think its necessary for the system to work the way it does, otherwise there's not much point in even having it.

 

[Fantasea]

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:



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

I trust you are aware that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is the statistical branch of Planned Parenthood, aren't you?

 

[talloulou]

thats true, but it applies too virtually all forms of government aid. public education doesnt encourage parents to work harder to pay for private education, welfare doesnt encourage people to get jobs, etc.

but the alternative is that the people that need help the most, wont be able to get it. I think its necessary for the system to work the way it does, otherwise there's not much point in even having it.

Why? Why can't a mother/father/and child be just as eligible for financial aid as a mother/child?

 

[FallingPianos]

I trust you are aware that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is the statistical branch of Planned Parenthood, aren't you?

this is what I could find:

Alan Guttmacher Institute: History
The Center was originally constituted as a semiautonomous division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Its early development was nurtured by Alan F. Guttmacher, an eminent obstetrician-gynecologist, teacher and writer who was PPFA's president for more than a decade until his death in 1974. The Center was renamed in Dr. Guttmacher's memory, and AGI became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977; it remains a special affiliate of PPFA.

its affiliated with PPFA, its not a part of the PPFA.

 

[FallingPianos]

Why? Why can't a mother/father/and child be just as eligible for financial aid as a mother/child?

I never said they cant. I dont know what the current law is, but I'd like it to be determained by parental income. two parents are more likely to have a higher income than one, but if a two parent household has a low enough income, I dont see why it should be disqualified.

 

[Fantasea]

this is what I could find:
its affiliated with PPFA, its not a part of the PPFA.

Yeah, right. And if you believe that, you must believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too.

:2funny:​

 

[Fantasea]

But seriously I do think we have to somehow work on the problem of poverty in our country. I just don't know how you do that. It would be nice if families could get help without the man splitting. Oddly it seems the current system is set up so a woman will actually get more help if her man up and leaves her or at least pretends to be gone which seems very counter-productive and anti-family to me.

While this is a subject for a thread in itself, the "War on Poverty", one of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs, while spending trillions of dollars, ostensibly "to eradicate poverty as we know it", simply managed to inflict more and more poverty on more and more people and leaves as his legacy, some forty years later, a sub-class of under-educated individuals who, unable to support themselves, are forever dependent upon government largess.

 

[FallingPianos]

Yeah, right. And if you believe that, you must believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too.

:2funny:​

here are the 2003 tax returns for both organizations:

AGI Tax Return

PPFA Tax Return

I'm not sure if you need to register with the website to see the documents, but if you do, registration is free.

PPFA appoints 6 of AGI's 43 board members, and donated 665,000 to the institute. The AGI appoints 1 of PPFA's 36 board members.

 

[Indy]

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.

Just to let you know that everybody isn't against you, I agree with almost everything you said. While I am completely pro-choice (simply because I'm a guy and I don't see how I could possibly know the first thing about what the mothers are going through) I do see late term abortions are rediculous. If it takes that long to decide, then you should be forced to have the baby, at that point you are just being cruel. And if it would end the debate forever, I would even concent to banning mid-term abortions (assuming that it is easy enough for the woman to obtain an aboriton in the earlier terms) under the same grounds. MAP is fine with me 'cause like you said it is just an extra dose of birth controll.

Now, I think part of the reason why pro-choicers defend their stances so adamantly is because they are still being confronted by the far-right (albeit extremist) point of view that they shouldn't even be allowed to practice birthcontrol and we still are seing pharmasists refusing to fulfill the MAP prescriptions on the basis of religeous conflict. Also, even if the majority of Americans (which I don't think would necessarially be that hard to get) to agree on the above terms, I don't think that it WOULD end the issue. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, and many other branches of Christianity would still fight tooth and nail for the total ban of abortions. Like you said, give an inch - take a mile.

 

[Fantasea]

here are the 2003 tax returns for both organizations:

AGI Tax Return

PPFA Tax Return

I'm not sure if you need to register with the website to see the documents, but if you do, registration is free.

PPFA appoints 6 of AGI's 43 board members, and donated 665,000 to the institute. The AGI appoints 1 of PPFA's 36 board members.

This proves nothing. Every corporate entity is required to file tax returns.

You are attempting to screen fly turds out of pepper.

 

[FallingPianos]

This proves nothing. Every corporate entity is required to file tax returns.

You are attempting to screen fly turds out of pepper.

what are you talking about? the information just gave you is from those tax returns.

 

[Fantasea]

Just to let you know that everybody isn't against you, I agree with almost everything you said. While I am completely pro-choice (simply because I'm a guy and I don't see how I could possibly know the first thing about what the mothers are going through) I do see late term abortions are rediculous. If it takes that long to decide, then you should be forced to have the baby, at that point you are just being cruel. And if it would end the debate forever, I would even concent to banning mid-term abortions (assuming that it is easy enough for the woman to obtain an aboriton in the earlier terms) under the same grounds. MAP is fine with me 'cause like you said it is just an extra dose of birth controll.

Now, I think part of the reason why pro-choicers defend their stances so adamantly is because they are still being confronted by the far-right (albeit extremist) point of view that they shouldn't even be allowed to practice birthcontrol and we still are seing pharmasists refusing to fulfill the MAP prescriptions on the basis of religeous conflict. Also, even if the majority of Americans (which I don't think would necessarially be that hard to get) to agree on the above terms, I don't think that it WOULD end the issue. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, and many other branches of Christianity would still fight tooth and nail for the total ban of abortions. Like you said, give an inch - take a mile.

I'm afraid you miss the point entirely. The question is really political -- does the privacy of the mother trump the life of the child she is carrying in her womb?

The question is simple and it boils down to this. Should the mother have the power to kill a child conceived out of wedlock, or whose birth maybe an inconvenience?

Arguments based on religion can never succeed. The only folks who argue abortion on the basis of religion are those who are weak on biology.

They would be well advised to learn more about the phenomenon of conception as propounded by folks who make it their life's work and whose statements appearing below have been denied, mocked, and ridiculed, but never refuted in this forum.

These, for example, are a few:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of ObstetricsJ.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

 

[Fantasea]

what are you talking about? the information just gave you is from those tax returns.

The fact that both file separate tax returns is not an indication that they are not joined at the hip, as it were.

 

[FallingPianos]

The fact that both file separate tax returns is not an indication that they are not joined at the hip, as it were.

ah. I wasnt posting the two tax returns to show that they are seperate entities, I posted them because reading the tax returns does give some information about exactly how tied they are.

 

[Indy]

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of ObstetricsJ.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Ok, here is the flaw with some of these statements and why this doesn't win the argument.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.[/B]
"The beginning of a new human being" isn't the same as saying "the beginning of life". That's the equivalent of saying that my finger is my body. No, my finger is my finger and it is only PART of my body. If it were severed, it would no longer be my body, instead it is a severed finger. The start of a human beings development does not equate it to being filled with life. Or for that matter, even if it DOES equate the beginning of life, it still does not constitute an EQUIVALENT lifeform to those who are fully developed (or reasonably so). I don't equate the two to be the same, sorry.

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
This quote doesn't even discuss the issue at hand. Whether or not the "zygote" is developing or not, my above comments still hold their merrit.

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
Same comments as before.

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of ObstetricsJ.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.
This statement is an opinion, not a fact. There is no way to validate this without first having an universal definition of the beginning of life which as you can see is still being debated upon.

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
Still an opinion. Like I said, your definition of alive is based on one persons definition over anothers. If there truely were an accepted definition then we wouldn't even be having this argument. And like I said before, if its not alive then its "death" doesn't exist. Wording things so they bring about emotion to those reading it isn't going to win the argument here.

All in all I'm sorry. You cannot bring about an accepted definition of "the beginning of life" if you try to go much farther than the birthing process or perhaps the third trimester. Both sides will not agree, and you will have 50% trying to force the other 50% into submission. Which isn't what a democracy is about. And YES it is a political issue. Which is why your quotes are also suspicious. These "researchers" you used devoted their lives to debunking pro-choicers stances like your said. How are they credible?

 

[talloulou]

.
All in all I'm sorry. You cannot bring about an accepted definition of "the beginning of life" if you try to go much farther than the birthing process or perhaps the third trimester. Both sides will not agree, and you will have 50% trying to force the other 50% into submission. Which isn't what a democracy is about. And YES it is a political issue. Which is why your quotes are also suspicious. These "researchers" you used devoted their lives to debunking pro-choicers stances like your said. How are they credible?

No, I'm sorry but there are numerous flaws in your argument. There is no question about when human life begins. None. No scientists or drs questions this. No abortion dr. or women having an abortion can question this. An abortion ends the life of a developing human at its earliest stages. If it didn't then you wouldn't need an abortion. If there is a possibility that a human's life has not begun at conception and that human is not developing in utero why not just wait and see what happens vs performing surgery to kill something that may or may not be a developing human life. That's absurd and ignorant. Human life begins at conception. It really is that simple. If you don't kill the life that has begun during an abortion then you would still be pregnant.

Now you can argue that the value of the life is not as valuable as the mother who doesn't wish to be pregnant. You can argue that a human in its earliest stages is not as valuable or even not the same as a more developed human. Then you would have valid arguments.

And that is what this is saying, "It still does not constitute an EQUIVALENT lifeform to those who are fully developed."

However to refuse to accept that life begins at conception is to turn your back on science and feign complete and total ignorance of the human reproductive process.

 

[Fantasea]

ah. I wasnt posting the two tax returns to show that they are seperate entities, I posted them because reading the tax returns does give some information about exactly how tied they are.

How about on the order of Siamese twins?

 

[Fantasea]

Ok, here is the flaw with some of these statements and why this doesn't win the argument.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.[/B]
"The beginning of a new human being" isn't the same as saying "the beginning of life". That's the equivalent of saying that my finger is my body. No, my finger is my finger and it is only PART of my body. If it were severed, it would no longer be my body, instead it is a severed finger. The start of a human beings development does not equate it to being filled with life. Or for that matter, even if it DOES equate the beginning of life, it still does not constitute an EQUIVALENT lifeform to those who are fully developed (or reasonably so). I don't equate the two to be the same, sorry.

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
This quote doesn't even discuss the issue at hand. Whether or not the "zygote" is developing or not, my above comments still hold their merrit.

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
Same comments as before.

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of ObstetricsJ.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.
This statement is an opinion, not a fact. There is no way to validate this without first having an universal definition of the beginning of life which as you can see is still being debated upon.

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
Still an opinion. Like I said, your definition of alive is based on one persons definition over anothers. If there truely were an accepted definition then we wouldn't even be having this argument. And like I said before, if its not alive then its "death" doesn't exist. Wording things so they bring about emotion to those reading it isn't going to win the argument here.

All in all I'm sorry. You cannot bring about an accepted definition of "the beginning of life" if you try to go much farther than the birthing process or perhaps the third trimester. Both sides will not agree, and you will have 50% trying to force the other 50% into submission. Which isn't what a democracy is about. And YES it is a political issue. Which is why your quotes are also suspicious. These "researchers" you used devoted their lives to debunking pro-choicers stances like your said. How are they credible?

I appreciate your effort, however, all you done is to say, "I disagree." Do you believe that this is sufficient to "win the argument"? I don't.

When you are able to present refutation from individuals who are similarly qualified to speak or write on the subject, then you will, at least, be able to say that you have been responsive.

I respectfully suggest that you search for some ammunition with which to defend your position.

 

[Indy]

I appreciate your effort, however, all you done is to say, "I disagree." Do you believe that this is sufficient to "win the argument"? I don't.

When you are able to present refutation from individuals who are similarly qualified to speak or write on the subject, then you will, at least, be able to say that you have been responsive.

I respectfully suggest that you search for some ammunition with which to defend your position.

LOL, similarly qualified huh? Its kinda hard to do that since there aren't too many doctors that are as left-wing as your "qualified" sources are right-wing. That's kinda the point I said ealier. If you devote your life to end abortion then say you are an unbiased researcher, you are lying. You research comes from a partisan source and cannot be used as an example. Expecially since most of their statments are opinions and not facts.

"There is no question about when human life begins. None. No scientists or drs questions this. No abortion dr. or women having an abortion can question this. An abortion ends the life of a developing human at its earliest stages."

You gotta be joking. So all I have to do to refute your argument would be to find ONE, O-N-E, woman to say that she doesn't believe that life begins with conception. Hmm.... Okay here we go:

Mandy (my wife): "I do not believe that life begins at conception." <-- direct quote. There, your argument is refuted.