Abortion Views

[kAb]

I have started this topic after consulting with balaam over the Abortion topic which was closed due to the pontential flame.

This topic is for mature people only, who will open themselves to other people's views.

If any flame occurs, the topic will be closed immediately.

I know that there are many intelligent people on this board, so lets try not to ruin this. I know its a delicate topic, but lets all be mature about it.

I'll start it off..


In a rape case, i believe abortion should be available for a certain period of time, as soon as the hands and individual features begin to form on the fetus (i think it is 8 weeks) i believe abortion is murder.

In other cases, where the woman had the choice to be protected but didn't bother to etc., no.

The problem is, not many people know about the pills you can take up to about 3 days after sex which prevent pregnancy. its not abortion and its extremely effective.

[Z]

this is my first post in a while....

neways, im against abortion. yeah its taking away a potential life, and who gives ne1 the right to do that? the parent? so does my father have a right to kill me now? no...
yes, there should be a time limit, such as a couple days or so (for this pill?)....yeah....thats my view. ill check back here later.

[MagicNakor]

The pills you're talking about, known as the "Morning After" pills, are generally used in cases of rape, and for the most part, won't be prescribed otherwise. They aren't meant to be a contraceptive, as they contain horribly high amounts of hormones, and have a number of associated risk factors. Plus, they've only got a 75% chance of working. Of course, this differs between countries, and they could've been more refined since I got this information.

:ninja:

[2nd gen noob]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@3 July 2003 - 06:38
The pills you're talking about, known as the "Morning After" pills, are generally used in cases of rape, and for the most part, won't be prescribed otherwise. They aren't meant to be a contraceptive, as they contain horribly high amounts of hormones, and have a number of associated risk factors. Plus, they've only got a 75% chance of working. Of course, this differs between countries, and they could've been more refined since I got this information.

:ninja:
"Morning after" pills are used very widly among teenage females in the uk. i believe you can also get them free on the national health service too.

maybe this is not such a good idea for the uk...


anyway, on the topic of abortion, i am a catholic, hence my religion would dictate i be against abortion, however, my personal feeling is that in the majority of cases, abortion should not be used, however, in cases of rape/incest, abortion should be made an option

[balamm]

Just to be perfectly clear here, I don't want to be seen as sanctioning or condemning a topic.
My suggestion was that if one was started, it must be stated clearly that there would be certain expectations from the posters.
I believe that has been stated.
Due to the sensitive nature of this topic however, the potential for some discomfort does exist.

I would suggest, if you are not in any way comfortable reading the views expressed here, that you find another thread more to your taste and forget this one.
The ultimate choice of what is appropriate is not mine. If the site admins, or owners want it closed, it will be closed.

Thanks for your consideration

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

It's just not taking a potential life, it's taking a life.
A potential life is "wasting your seed".
Women are using it as a first and secondary means of birth control.
This has become a horrible tradgedy of astronomical proportions.
I know several woman who have had abortions and it's terrible what it has done to them.
Even after many years it's still with them in their everyday life.

@KAB

In a rape case, i believe abortion should be available for a certain period of time, as soon as the hands and individual features begin to form on the fetus (i think it is 8 weeks) i believe abortion is murder.

Then you think it's allright to terminate the child/fetus?
I don't think that's consistant with the fact that theirs a life at stake.
What about 8 weeks and 1 day?
I'm torn on this and I think I would give the woman the choice after being given much information.
No partial birth abortions- period.
The name of that procedure is a joke.

Here are some links with lots of info

Abortions since 1972 and the Characteristics of the women who had them (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp)
World Abortion Statistics (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/world_statistics.asp)
All statistics for all states (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/states/statesindex.asp)
Abortions compared to war Deaths (http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm)
Abortion Facts (http://URL=http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp)

[ilw]

The only moral arguments people really set forward against abortion before the time limit used in the West (i think it varies but not by much) are usually religiously dictated. Religious views that have been passed down for at least hundreds if not thousands of years, the fact that we now understand many of the processes that are involved in childbirth and can and have in most countries made a reasonable moral decision based on those facts has in many cases not changed the way religion (and therefore religious people) view abortion. IMO before the time limit imposed a foetus is nothing more than a cluster of cells, similar to any other complex cluster of cells. It has no nervous system and experiences nothing whether dead or alive.
IMO women should be made fully aware of the risks and problems associated and then its fully up to them.

Shock&Awe: (your Abortion Facts link needs a tiny bit of modification) As for Abortions compared to War deaths, so what? I don't really understand the point of that, why not compare war deaths to murders or miscarriages? That would be a similar statistic and would maybe get some more funding for these problems.

The topic that sparked this off was because I got that link from the BBC website which showed that the USA's decision to try and stop abortion in the developing world would probably kill hundreds/thousands of women. I was also particularly distressed to find out that of the promised 15billion for AIDs, Bush was essentially flushing 5billion dollars (which could be IMO much better used) on programmes that were designed to stop the spread of AIDs through abstinence programmes (and related religious programmes).

[human_pet]

I think abortion should ONLY be available for women who are bound to have sickness after the pregnancy,but they should abort the potential baby before the foetus is alive...

[ilw]

Originally posted by human_pet@3 July 2003 - 12:38
I think abortion should ONLY be available for women who are bound to have sickness after the pregnancy,but they should abort the potential baby before the foetus is alive...
I think everyone is agreed you pretty much can't abort the baby once its 'alive' . Obviously there are different opinions on when this is the case and is probably the major area of contention here. Spiritual people will probably say the baby is alive from the point of fertilisation, scientific people will probably tend to give a later date for this eg nervous system/ heartbeat/ beginnings of brain development.

What about mothers who don't want the baby/will suffer during the pregnancy/will suffer (non medically) as a result of the pregnancy?

[clocker]

I think that the right to an abortion should be unfettered.

It seems to me that all of the concern lavished upon the fetus by the anti-abortion folks completely disappears at the time of birth.

[j2k4]

I am anti-abortion; I believe in self-control, but as I have an appreciation for human weakness (suffering from it myself), I'll leave that aside.

I think abortion should have been "shepherded" a bit more closely from the very moment the Supreme Court gave it sanction; it should never have become so easily available it could be shopped for, like a loaf of bread.

Having said that, I would be stricken over denying access to a victim of rape or incest.

I also have a problem with the fact the man (a vital part of the equation) loses any and all rights at the moment of conception.

Granting the burden of carrying and giving birth to a child cannot be minimized, why is the father legally "excised" from any decision-making?

He is legally estopped from even offering to raise the child; if the mother chooses to abort in order to avoid "stretchmarks", this trumps the father's interest.

Actually, he is legally precluded from even having knowledge of the pregnancy, should the mother so choose.

The legal "weighting" involved here is disturbing.

[ilw]

I think the basic idea is that of not recognising the foetus as being alive or an entity in its own right, therefore the mother is the only entity with human rights in the equation, as such knowledge of the medical status of her body or control of her body against her will is illegal.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@3 July 2003 - 07:12
I think the basic idea is that of not recognising the foetus as being alive or an entity in its own right, therefore the mother is the only entity with human rights in the equation, as such knowledge of the medical status of her body or control of her body against her will is illegal.
Just so-

It is one of the great, unfortunate stumbling blocks of our legal system, and could have been mitigated by a more far-sighted ruling initially.

[clocker]

Well j2,

After decades ( in the US) and centuries ( in the rest of the world ) where women had zero reproductive rights, if the shoe is now on the other foot I'd say "Turnabout is fair play".

[the_faceman]

The circumstances in which the future baby is conceived plays a large part in my views, as with many others, after someone is raped i think that abortion should always be an option for the female. Her life has already been turned upside down through the attack, and should she choose not to further her distress then she has every right too.

I think that if the mother's health is in danger then it should be an option, and the same goes if the child is going to be severely disabled (they can do tests for certain disabilities). I know families personally that have disabled children that are basically vegetables and are unaware of their existence to a large extent, and although the parents love their child dearly, it has also ruined their lives and their other children's to a lesser extent, because the disabled child needs 24 hour care, so the financial cost is tremendous, and the parents don't have enough time to share with the other kids. So essentially 4 lives are made worse to keep one child alive (who is in constant pain), and 14 probably doesn't have an awareness of themselves in the same way we do.

Always in the past i've always been very careful with my girlfriends, and taken all the usual precautions, but abstinence is the only 100% sure-fire method of avoiding pregnancy (and i'm not really into that idea...) so there is always a chance, albeit tiny, that my girlfriend could get pregnant. I'm at uni just now, but i'd leave the decision up to her is she would like to keep the baby, as i think it's something both parents have to agree on. If she wanted to keep the baby i'd try to figure out what's best financially for our new 'family', maybe our parents could help out til we both finished university, then we would have a better chance of getting decent jobs. If this couldn't be done then i would quit uni and get a job in a factory. It wouldn't pay very well, but if it needed to be done...

I'm sure i would love my child with all my heart, but i'd imagine i would always regret the fact that i became a father so young.

I have little sympathy for those that get themselves into a similar situation, but through not taking precautions and being careless, but i still feel that the parents have the right to decide whether they want to have their baby.

One of the reasons for this is you have to ask "what happens after the child is born?" do the parents keep the unwanted child and bring it up in a household not filled with love, instead replaced by bitterness? Does the father or mother leave and another single-parent family created? (that is not derogatory to single-parents, my dad died when i was young, and for many, many years, my mother brought both myself and my younger sister on her own, and did a damn good job and always did her best) there is of course a chance that although unwanted, the parents learn to love their child and everything works out ok. There is another option i can think of, that the child is put up for adoption. I'm sure thousands of children have a very happy life with their adoptive parents, and it's a great thing for those that can't have children of their own, but i'd still imagine that it'd be nicer for a child to be with their biological parents.

Like Clocker said in a previous reply, the anti-abortion brigade seem to have little concern about the child once it is born.

Life is surely the greatest gift of all, but when that life is likely to be an unhappy one, or it's going to ruin the lives of others, then i think abortion should be considered, but as early as possible. I've read that a baby becomes aware of it's surroundings well before scheduled birth, and that of course, makes it more like murder rather than terminating a life.

Basically i believe that only the parents have the right to decide what to do, and everyone else should realise that it has little or nothing to do with them. If my wife/girlfriend were pregnant, and someone said "you must keep the baby" or even "you must get rid of the baby" then i'd think to myself "what right have you to tell us what to do?" It's a personal and private decision, that has to take into account what kind of future ourselves and the child would have.

Maybe if anti-abortionists (i mean those who actively campaign against it) used their time to fight some real tragedies concerning children and people in general, some simple examples are abuse, forced prostitution and even clearing the millions of landmines that kill and maim adults and children the world over, then the world would truly be a better place.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@3 July 2003 - 07:20
Well j2,

After decades ( in the US) and centuries ( in the rest of the world ) where women had zero reproductive rights, if the shoe is now on the other foot I'd say "Turnabout is fair play".
"Turnabout is fair play", as a legal concept, has it's flaws.

It does, however, make an excellent tool for the seeking of revenge, as we now see.

[ilw]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 14:34
Maybe if anti-abortionists (i mean those who actively campaign against it) used their time to fight some real tragedies  EDITED like clearing the millions of landmines that kill and maim adults and children the world over, then the world would truly be a better place.
I like this idea, send all the anti abortion campaigners to cambodia and make them clear mines :lol: :lol:

[ilw]

About the man having no legal right to force a woman to continue bearing his child to term, i think thats completely justified as the alternative is much more open to abuse and much more of an infringement on someones rights. Can u imagine being forced to have a full pregnancy and go through the trauma of giving birth of a child that u don't want?

[jetje]

Well luckily i live in a country where it is legal. It will prevent a lot of ruined lives for kids and mothers... Cases like rape are mentioned but also for mentally disabled people that doesn't have the ability to raise kids, for stupid young kids that were just dumb, for junks that accidently get pregnant.... It will prevent lives in missery for the people involved and the unborn child.
Ofcourse there is a certain timeline... at some point it is to late for an abortion, that has to be regulated well.

Woman in our country believe they are boss in own belly... i think that's their right

i think what should happen is more freely spoken about sexuality, good sexual education and explanings about birthcontrol and anti-conception product.
Also condoms must become cheaper and easier available...!
Also the right for an abortion would help a lot of people that are searching for one to be able to get the right medical care in stead of going to an underground butcher that does it if you pay enough money...!

My lack of english prevnts me to write it a bit more clearly, to bad..... :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 07:34


Like Clocker said in a previous reply, the anti-abortion brigade seem to have little concern about the child once it is born.


the faceman-

Excellent post.

As regards the "anti-abortion brigade" (BTW-use of the term "brigade" is, to be PC, inflammatory), they are sometimes clumsy in their actions and rhetoric, but they realize that, no matter what the pro-abortion lot think, it is beyond the abilities of us mortals to "legislate" responsible teenage behavior, good parenting skills, fortunate circumstance, and a positive upbringing.

These can only be propagated by examples, of which we have precious few at the moment.

The media spend more time on the negative than the positive; look in your newspaper:

"Six drive-by killings in the financially-strapped minority neighborhood today!"

Does anybody EVER make it out alive and successful?

We shall never know.

Edit: Don't mean to presume this is an exclusively U.S. enigma by inclusion of this last.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2003 - 06:39


It does, however, make an excellent tool for the seeking of revenge, as we now see.
I personally do not know of any woman who has had an abortion simply to seek "revenge", although I'm willing to concede that it may happen.
I also was not using the "turnabout" example as a legal concept.
I simply think that after millenia of being the vessel ( willing or not) for the propogation of the species, women deserve the right to make at least as many bad decisions as men certainly have.
Perhaps they will do better.

I also do not advocate the practise of abortion as birth control, however, many anti-abortion advocates are also anti-birth control too. The luxury of ethical nicities is one that is just not affordable to a vast number of people in the world today.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+3 July 2003 - 07:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 3 July 2003 - 07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 July 2003 - 06:39


It does, however, make an excellent tool for the seeking of revenge, as we now see.
I personally do not know of any woman who has had an abortion simply to seek "revenge", although I&#39;m willing to concede that it may happen.
I also was not using the "turnabout" example as a legal concept.
I simply think that after millenia of being the vessel ( willing or not) for the propogation of the species, women deserve the right to make at least as many bad decisions as men certainly have.
Perhaps they will do better.

I also do not advocate the practise of abortion as birth control, however, many anti-abortion advocates are also anti-birth control too. The luxury of ethical nicities is one that is just not affordable to a vast number of people in the world today.[/b][/quote]
I should have widened my focus as re: "Turnabout, etc..."; I have seen this tactic used to justify such as slave reparations and college admissions, these days.

It is that type of reasoning that disturbs.

As to the revenge aspect, I&#39;ve had it done to me, but I would assert this was an act by an unbalanced person, and so hope I retain some objectivity on this point.

I, too, hope women will learn to treat this right to ultimate "control" responsibly, but I find myself surrounded by evidence the trend is in the opposite direction.

[the_faceman]

Thanks j24k.

I apologise for the "brigade" part, i see what you mean, but i was meaning those involved in campaigning without ever having a pregnancy scare (which myself and an ex-girlfriend had once, but turned out to be her hormones messing up. That was a life-changing period of time), or have had a child of their own, or like you pointed out, they have had a blessed life where decisions would be much easier to make.

I&#39;d never believe being financially comfortable is the key to happiness, you need love, family and friends among other things for that, but i do know from past experience that not having a lot of money is definitely a huge contribution to hardship and makes almost everything more difficult.

I&#39;d also like to add the fact that i think the timeline for abortion should be short, with it lengthening only in cases of medical worries and possibly in the rape instances.

Although i think that parents-to-be have the right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, it is unacceptable for them to wait 6 or 7months before making a decision, as we all know a child can be born that much premature and still survive in some cases and lead a reasonably healthy life. The decision needs to be made as soon as possible.

I have to agree with you that good values and a sense of responsibility have to be instilled from a young age, and that putting it into practice is harder than the theory.

With regards to the media, it&#39;s because negative and shocking news sells better than positive news. Plenty of people make the most of their lives from terribly inhibiting circumstances, just as plenty of people from privelaged backgrounds manage to screw up what "seems" to be an easy road through life. The media moulds the majority of the public&#39;s perception on just about everything.

I don&#39;t want to offend anyone, but religion plays a huge part in ruining a lot of lives too, because certain religions see abortion as a huge sin, meaning a lot of lives are ruined because people blindly follow their faith (mind you - i suppose that was faith is, being able to let go and just follow regardless.)

I can understand why these views are held by certain religions, but what i can&#39;t understand is that they are also against contraception. If this was more widely accepted (Lot&#39;s of my friends are Catholics, and they tell me they don&#39;t use protection) then maybe abortions wouldn&#39;t be needed. Humans (and i think Dolphins too the last time i checked) are the only animals that have sex for "fun" so to speak, as well as to procreate, so surely we should be allowed to do it without fear of creating an unwanted pregnancy, and when we feel we are mature enough and ready to have a child we can stop using contraception methods and try for a child?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2003 - 07:10


I, too, hope women will learn to treat this right to ultimate "control" responsibly, but I find myself surrounded by evidence the trend is in the opposite direction.
What evidence are you referring to?

[ilw]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 15:20

I&#39;d also like to add the fact that i think the timeline for abortion should be short, with it lengthening only in cases of medical worries and possibly in the rape instances.

Although i think that parents-to-be have the right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, it is unacceptable for them to wait 6 or 7months before making a decision, as we all know a child can be born that much premature and still survive in some cases and lead a reasonably healthy life. The decision needs to be made as soon as possible.
I completely disagree with that first statement, the deadline has to be a biological/medical one for all people regardless of their personal circumstances. Why force some people into a rushed decision? Personally I think the current status of abortion laws in the EU is spot on, the limit for abortion is set so that the foetus will never experience pain or be in any way aware of its own demise and there is almost no way women can be forced to have a child they don&#39;t want.
As for the 2nd point, i don&#39;t htink theres a country in the world that thinks abortion at 6/7 months is legal/sensible as at that point the baby is almost completely formed

[the_faceman]

i didn&#39;t mean short as in weeks, the limits you mentioned that the EU currently uses would be ideal, no pain, no awareness.

And the 6/7 months thing was an exaggeration, as i suggested with the point that the baby could survive in many cases being born at that stage. i was emphasising that you couldn&#39;t wait til the last minute and then say "you know what? i&#39;ve changed my mind, i don&#39;t really think we should have this baby now".

I know for sure it&#39;s a decision that takes some serious thought, but it shouldn&#39;t take numerous months.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+3 July 2003 - 08:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 July 2003 - 08:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 July 2003 - 07:10


I, too, hope women will learn to treat this right to ultimate "control" responsibly, but I find myself surrounded by evidence the trend is in the opposite direction.
What evidence are you referring to? [/b][/quote]
Colloquial evidence; friends, acquaintances, daughters of same, etc.

They seem to have no qualms over accessing the option nor suffer any guilt over discussion of their experiences.

the faceman-

Another heartfelt post, for which I thank you.

My point as regards the media was meant to highlight their ignorance of the necessity that they should serve as a tool for positive change; as this is undeniable, they should be chastised for their failures on this point, free press or no.

Also-for purposes of this debate, you might consider deleting any reference to religion, which is, I think, something that can only be argued separately.

[the_faceman]

i would normally, but i feel in this particular topic, that religion plays a significant role, and to leave it out with the interest of avoiding upsetting some people, would be like talking about Terminator 3 with no mention of Arnie.

I don&#39;t think that anyone would think that using contraception is a worse thing than abortion, so in my own view, those who do have a problem with both should consider the lesser of two evils in thier eyes, as increased usage of contraception would almost definitely reduce the numbers of those that see an abortion as the only solution. I&#39;d imagine encouraging the use of contraception would be much easier than encouraging abstinence.

Not to mention the role that some contraception methods play in reducing STD&#39;s, including life threatening diseases like AIDS. The number of children born with AIDS is very high, i could find a figure somewhere, but no-one could be sure how accurate it is. If an unborn child has the right to live, does it have the right to be born without such a serious disease too? But this part truly is for another topic, and i&#39;m not very knowledgeable on this matter, so i&#39;ll cut it off here.

And yes, the media should take more responsibility, maybe if it wasn&#39;t so "doom and gloom" all the time then people would stop thinking "whats the point of trying? the world is messed up anyways..." and would take heart from other people&#39;s positive experiences.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 09:05
i would normally, but i feel in this particular topic, that religion plays a significant role, and to leave it out with the interest of avoiding upsetting some people, would be like talking about Terminator 3 with no mention of Arnie.


Another "on point" post; I hope others are reading your stuff.

I do not want to discount any affect, negative or positive, religion has/hasn&#39;t had on the question at hand; I only wish to point out the matter of the efficacy of abortion has no place in religion (as far as it is referred to at all)-it grows out of a rejection or omission of any religious aspect, and so should be considered entirely secular in nature, and discussed, or debated, similarly.

It should suffice to say merely that inclusion of "religion", and it&#39;s dictates or philosophies, renders debate moot, or impossible, and discussion of it&#39;s influence on the question of abortion is (generally) neither wanted nor productive.

The relationship between religion and abortion, you see, would require intellect we plainly do not possess.

Unless we are somehow harboring a P2P-friendly seminarian or possibly a likewise afflicted Jesuit scholar who could enlighten us?

[the_faceman]

Unless we are somehow harboring a P2P-friendly seminarian or possibly a likewise afflicted Jesuit scholar who could enlighten us?

i doubt it lol :P

I see your point. This will probably be my last post on the topic. I don&#39;t think many people are qualified to debate this properly. Rape victims, mothers and fathers, those who have suffered a miscarriage, those who have been put up for adoption (EDIT*- i had put &#39;abortion&#39;), those brought up in a family without love, those who have had abortions themselves, these are all people that are truly able to argue for their beliefs on this matter, and i&#39;m not any of them. I&#39;m only 20, i feel my opinions are still valid, but will carry more weight when i&#39;m more experienced in life.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 11:28

Unless we are somehow harboring a P2P-friendly seminarian or possibly a likewise afflicted Jesuit scholar who could enlighten us?

i doubt it lol :P

I see your point. This will probably be my last post on the topic. I don&#39;t think many people are qualified to debate this properly. Rape victims, mothers and fathers, those who have suffered a miscarriage, those who have been put up for abortion, those brought up in a family without love, those who have had abortions themselves, these are all people that are truly able to argue for their beliefs on this matter, and i&#39;m not any of them. I&#39;m only 20, i feel my opinions are still valid, but will carry more weight when i&#39;m more experienced in life.
Here&#39;s to your well-developed views-I hope you&#39;ll stick around.

JPaul-You occupy my personal home ground on this subject. ;)

[Skillian]

Well, I think the law as it is now (in the UK at least) reflects my beliefs on the subject. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can, and she should not have to feel guilty about it as was alluded in another post.

The idea that it is used as a method of contraception is just wrong I think. It is a serious operation, painful and certainly not without long term risk, and this is understood by the vast majority of women.

I agree the religious side of the debate cannot really be entered into, as it is almost impossible to argue against.

Basically I feel the option should be available to every single woman, regardless of circumstance and with no stigma attached, and that the decision should be wholly the woman&#39;s.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@3 July 2003 - 10:21


I find the concept of freely available abortions to be abhorrent. The idea that someone can chose to take the life of their own off-spring for the sake of convenience or vanity leaves me wondering what type of society we have become.
What you define as "convenience or vanity" the woman in question may call "necessity or lack of viable alternatives".

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+3 July 2003 - 19:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 July 2003 - 19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@3 July 2003 - 10:21


I find the concept of freely available abortions to be abhorrent. The idea that someone can chose to take the life of their own off-spring for the sake of convenience or vanity leaves me wondering what type of society we have become.
What you define as "convenience or vanity" the woman in question may call "necessity or lack of viable alternatives". [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s a matter between them and their conscience. The one person they can&#39;t lie to is themself.

Your point is little more than sophistry and you know it. It does you no credit.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@3 July 2003 - 12:36


Your point is little more than sophistry and you know it. It does you no credit.
Not at all.
Outside of rape, which you only consider begrudgingly, it would seem that every other reason to seek an abortion is to be dismissed a "convenience or vanity".

I&#39;ve know several women who have had to consider/receive an abortion and in every case it was a heartbreaking and difficult decision not to be trivialized as mere &#39;vanity.&#39;
I think only time will prove the final choice good or bad ( or, in the case of the religious, perhaps God), but I&#39;m content to know that the women in question had the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by JPaul
I would not wish to trivialise anyone killing what I believe to be another human being.


This is an intersting point... at what stage does an embryo become a human life? I would say when the fetus is capable of consciousness that is when abortion becomes infanticide. But.. when its just a cluster of cells, say 2 days after fertilisation, I cant understand how you can classify that as *********. You could argue that those cells have the potential to create a human life but so does your sperm&#33; Masturbation could be viewed in the same way if you take that idea to its logical extreme.

The realities of banning abortion would be catastrophic, a generation of unwanted kids, backstreet abortions etc. On a practical level I really cant see a viable alternative, well apart from enforced sterilisation but thats going down the "Seig heil" route.

[the_faceman]

i don&#39;t want to go into this in detail, but one situation would be the one i mentioned earlier, and that is if it was known through testing that the child would be severely disabled (and by that i mean "vegetable like" not blind or deaf etc (that&#39;s not to say that being blind or deaf is an easy thing to live with, but i&#39;m sure many people born deaf/blind have gone one to lead very happy, fulfilled lives).

The family i know have a huge burden in the form of a son they love dearly, but that has essentially ruined their lives. They are not bitter towards their son in any way. they hate to see him in pain, with no awareness of what&#39;s going on. I don&#39;t know what kind of life that is. The strain it has caused the family is tremendous, both financially and mentally, for the 2 parents and the two other children, who are healthy. 24 hour care is hard work, even with the help of nurses. This would maybe be easier to take if the child was just paralysed, but was still able to recognise their parents and siblings, and respond in any way to the love that is shown to them. I know many people would still consider it to be human life, but their son far more closely resembles a living mass of dysfunctional tissue. I find it hard to accept that for the sake of this "empty life" that 4 other lives should be ruined.

How many people have been heard to say when they have seen someone after an accident being kept alive by machines or living the life of a vegetable - "If i&#39;m ever like that let me go peacefully" I know i certainly wouldn&#39;t want to live out my days like that, regardless if it&#39;s my one shot at life or not.

If a farm animal was born severely disabled it would be put down as an act of kindness and to put it out of it&#39;s suffering, and although i&#39;m not putting the same value on human and animal life the principle is the same.

[The Knife Thrower]

If someone doesn&#39;t want to raise a child then dump them in a care home. It sounds tough but it&#39;s a lot better than denying them the right to live.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@3 July 2003 - 20:36
You could argue that those cells have the potential to create a human life but so does your sperm&#33; Masturbation could be viewed in the same way if you take that idea to its logical extreme.


That is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted anywhere on this forum.

Those cells you speak of are a human life in the making. All they have to do is develop and grow.

My sperm can never, under any circumstances form a human life on their own.

This fascination you appear to have with taking other peoples points to their logical extreme is very interesting. Unfortunately you seem to leave the logic aspect behind when you do it.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul
Those cells you speak of are a human life in the making. All they have to do is develop and grow.


But can you really call killing a cluster of a few cells *********** though? I would argue that is pretty stupid too. As I stated I think it only becomes ********** when the fetus achieves consciousness.

Most abortion laws place a strict limit on the time frame for this very point.

What alternative would you suggest?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 20:53
i don&#39;t want to go into this in detail, but one situation would be the one i mentioned earlier, and that is if it was known through testing that the child would be severely disabled (and by that i mean "vegetable like" not blind or deaf etc (that&#39;s not to say that being blind or deaf is an easy thing to live with, but i&#39;m sure many people born deaf/blind have gone one to lead very happy, fulfilled lives).

The family i know have a huge burden in the form of a son they love dearly, but that has essentially ruined their lives. They are not bitter towards their son in any way. they hate to see him in pain, with no awareness of what&#39;s going on. I don&#39;t know what kind of life that is. The strain it has caused the family is tremendous, both financially and mentally, for the 2 parents and the two other children, who are healthy. 24 hour care is hard work, even with the help of nurses. This would maybe be easier to take if the child was just paralysed, but was still able to recognise their parents and siblings, and respond in any way to the love that is shown to them. I know many people would still consider it to be human life, but their son far more closely resembles a living mass of dysfunctional tissue. I find it hard to accept that for the sake of this "empty life" that 4 other lives should be ruined.

How many people have been heard to say when they have seen someone after an accident being kept alive by machines or living the life of a vegetable - "If i&#39;m ever like that let me go peacefully" I know i certainly wouldn&#39;t want to live out my days like that, regardless if it&#39;s my one shot at life or not.

If a farm animal was born severely disabled it would be put down as an act of kindness and to put it out of it&#39;s suffering, and although i&#39;m not putting the same value on human and animal life the principle is the same.
Well put sir. I don&#39;t know how to answer that. However the post was so well made I feel I must try.

I think it&#39;s one of those situations where those concerned would have to look at things when the situation arose. They would have to discuss the situation with everyone concerned and come to a decision on what was best for everyone.

I think this however is a similar situation to euthanasia and is probably best looked at from that perspective. I know it seems strange to discuss that about an unborn person, but I hope you take my point.

It would really be a case of thinking that the persons quality of life would be so little, that it wouldn&#39;t be any life at all. Which is similar to an old person who is perhaps seriously and terminally ill, deciding to end their suffering. In this instance the family would be deciding to end that suffering before it had begun. It would be an act of compassion towards the child.

I can see that this would be a group of people making a value judgement on whether another person&#39;s life was worth living. However if we accept that people of good conscience turn of life support machines on a daily basis, then I think that we can accept that this would also be an act of compassion.

I&#39;m sorry, this seems like a pathetic response, but it&#39;s the best I can do.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+3 July 2003 - 21:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 3 July 2003 - 21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
Those cells you speak of are a human life in the making. All they have to do is develop and grow.


But can you really call killing a cluster of a few cells ********** though? I would argue that is pretty stupid too. As I stated I think it only becomes ********** when the fetus achieves consciousness.

Most abortion laws place a strict limit on the time frame for this very point.

What alternative would you suggest? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sorry, I thought I made my position clear in my first post in this thread.

From conception it is a human life. You may feel that is a stupid position, however it is what I believe.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul
From conception it is a human life. You may feel that is a stupid position, however it is what I believe. l

Perhaps stupid was a hastily used and innappropriate adjective. It seems illogical to me but then again everyone is entitled to their beliefs. About the alternative though...

I would like to see what you would suggest if you disagree with the current situation regarding abortion.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+3 July 2003 - 21:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 3 July 2003 - 21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
From conception it is a human life. You may feel that is a stupid position, however it is what I believe. l

Perhaps stupid was a hastily used and inappropriate adjective. It seems illogical to me but then again everyone is entitled to their beliefs. About the alternative though...

I would like to see what you would suggest if you disagree with the current situation regarding abortion.[/b][/quote]

Again my apologies, I believe that I have made my position entirely clear. In my first post particularly but also in a couple of subsequent ones.

They are not particularly long and this is a relatively short thread. 2 or 3 minutes would cover reading them again (assuming you have already done so).

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul
Again my apologies, I believe that I have made my position entirely clear. In my first post particularly but also in a couple of subsequent ones.

They are not particularly long and this is a relatively short thread. 2 or 3 minutes would cover reading them again (assuming you have already done so).

hmm, perhaps I am having a particularly unobservant day today but.... I have seen you make your position clear on the status quo. You havent offered a clear alternative. Feel free to quote yourself if I am being unobservant.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+3 July 2003 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 3 July 2003 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
Again my apologies, I believe that I have made my position entirely clear. In my first post particularly but also in a couple of subsequent ones.

They are not particularly long and this is a relatively short thread. 2 or 3 minutes would cover reading them again (assuming you have already done so).

hmm, perhaps I am having a particularly unobservant day today but.... I have seen you make your position clear on the status quo. You havent offered a clear alternative. Feel free to quote yourself if I am being unobservant.[/b][/quote]
You are being obtuse and we are ruining a perfectly good discussion. There has been some excellent posting here and if it is to be destroyed than I would rather not be a part of it.

If you cannot understand that to me there is no alternative and that there are only very limited circumstances (for example the mothers life being at risk) where this is acceptable then I cannot make it any clearer for you.

I have tried to answer an excellent post made by the Faceman as best I could, however I will not spoil this any further by answering nebulous questions like "what would you do instead" any more.

Abortion is wrong, however sometimes other things are worse and we have to chose between them. Freely available abortion, as a matter of convenience or vanity is wrong. In all instances we must weigh up the wrongs on each side and decide what is for the best.

I tried to explain that we have to balance the harms in my reply to The Faceman&#39;s scenario. Obviously I did not do a very good job.

[clocker]

I think JPaul&#39;s position is completely clear.
He believes that abortion is tantamount to ********** and is almost never an acceptable alternative.
Fine.
Because his thoughts on this matter are based on belief any and all conclusions that he draws are unchallengable and don&#39;t require outside authentication.


Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


belief

&#092;Be*lief"&#092;, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele[&#39;a]fa. See Believe.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.



I believe in a woman&#39;s right to autonomy regarding her own body.

I expect that you&#39;ll grant me the same consideration that I just granted you, JPaul.

[Rat Faced]

Like j2k4, I have been the potential father and was not consulted prior to an abortion.

Although this happened some 12-13 years ago, I still feel upset at times over it..I was denied the chance to know a son/daughter.


However unlike you j2k4 I still believe that it is and should be, the ladies choice as to wether to have an abortion.

I also believe that they should not be allowed to make this decision without councelling from a professional, prior to the operation.

I said, I still feel sad..I have also seen a dear friend try and kill herself while drunk and moping about an abortion she&#39;d had 4 years previously. I do not think that they should be allowed to make a decision of this magnitude by themselves, under any circumstances.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@3 July 2003 - 22:26
I think JPaul&#39;s position is completely clear.
He believes that abortion is tantamount to ********** and is almost never an acceptably alternative.
Fine.
Because his thoughts on this matter are based on belief any and all conclusions that he draws are unchallengable and don&#39;t require outside authentication.


Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


belief

&#092;Be*lief"&#092;, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele[&#39;a]fa. See Believe.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.



I believe in a woman&#39;s right to autonomy regarding her own body.

I expect that you&#39;ll grant me the same consideration that I just granted you, JPaul.
Absolutely and without reservation.

I totally disagree with your position, whilst supporting your right to hold it.

Given that I believe that it is a human being from conception I can take no other position. I must support their right to life as much as I support yours.

As I think I have made clear, I also accept that there will be circumstances when we have to balance things and make a decision based on that. Sometimes we have to chose the "lesser of two evils".

Ironically it&#39;s one of the areas I don&#39;t see as black and white. Probably because I take it so seriously.

[the_faceman]

Originally posted by JPaul@3 July 2003 - 21:31
Well put sir. I don&#39;t know how to answer that. However the post was so well made I feel I must try.

I think it&#39;s one of those situations where those concerned would have to look at things when the situation arose. They would have to discuss the situation with everyone concerned and come to a decision on what was best for everyone.

I think this however is a similar situation to euthanasia and is probably best looked at from that perspective. I know it seems strange to discuss that about an unborn person, but I hope you take my point.

It would really be a case of thinking that the persons quality of life would be so little, that it wouldn&#39;t be any life at all. Which is similar to an old person who is perhaps seriously and terminally ill, deciding to end their suffering. In this instance the family would be deciding to end that suffering before it had begun. It would be an act of compassion towards the child.

I can see that this would be a group of people making a value judgement on whether another person&#39;s life was worth living. However if we accept that people of good conscience turn of life support machines on a daily basis, then I think that we can accept that this would also be an act of compassion.

I&#39;m sorry, this seems like a pathetic response, but it&#39;s the best I can do.

It seems far from a pathetic response. The euthanasia comparison is a valid one. (I also agree with the theory of euthanasia, and as with my views on abortion, only in what i consider circumstances that are appropriate).

We all know that each case for abortion can&#39;t be compared to some standardised chart of "acceptabilty" as every single one would have different circumstances, so you&#39;re right that value judgements have to be made. I&#39;m sure there are women in the world that would abort a baby to avoid stretch marks, for vanities sake as you said earlier, and i find that horrifying, although i&#39;d hope they were in the extreme minority.

As i said earlier, if somehow my girlfriend/fiancee/wife (i don&#39;t have all 3, just considering the possibilities) got pregnant and it wasn&#39;t planned, i wouldn&#39;t want my partner to have an abortion, but i&#39;d still leave the final decision to her, letting her know she had my support either way. The only reason i&#39;d have the baby is because i know i would love it with all my heart, no matter the complications it brought to my life. If however, i felt like i would resent the child, and be bitter towards it for changing the path of my life, i wouldn&#39;t look forward to the birth as much, because i wouldn&#39;t want any child brought into the world unloved. That said, i&#39;d still leave the final decision to my partner and if she decided to go ahead with it, i&#39;d try and learn to love the baby, safe in the knowledge that at least it&#39;s mother will give it the love it deserves. I don&#39;t see myself being like that, i had a pregnancy scare with an ex-girlfriend a few years back and i was fully prepared to bring up a child, although it scared the sh*t out of me. I&#39;d consider being loved by your parents a contributing factor to a child&#39;s quality of life. I can&#39;t imagine how horrible it must be being brought up in a bitter household because i was lucky enough to have great parents.

I&#39;m sure that a lot of people, myself for one, have a somewhat general life plan. They may plan to get married or not, have children or not, etc.

My personal plan is to be happily married at some point, financially secure and able to provide for the children i plan to have while i&#39;m young enough to enjoy bringing them up. My point is generally that in some cases, if a pregnancy was totally accidental, say for example contraception had failed as it does in probably 1% of cases, that maybe it&#39;d be better for both the parents and a child born too early in their lives to provide the love and care that it deserves to be terminated very early on (before consciousness), and later on a child be born intentionally, in an environment that will much more likely provide joy for the parents and the child, rather than hardship and misery. Consider that the child born at the later date would not be intentionally conceived because of the earlier birth, that led to comparitively unhappier lives. What&#39;s the best option - two unhappy parents and an unhappy child, or the opposite? Quality of life comes into play again, i don&#39;t feel that two adults should be punished (for want of a better word, a child isn&#39;t a punishment, but can be a huge burden), for a mistake that was never malicious and more likely really unlucky.

I&#39;m sorry that was a bit of a ramble, but it&#39;s hard to come up with a coherent argument when you feel so strongly about your own opinion, but at the same time you can see why other people hold their own opinions.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 July 2003 - 15:30



However unlike you j2k4 I still believe that it is and should be, the ladies choice as to wether to have an abortion.

I also believe that they should not be allowed to make this decision without councelling from a professional, prior to the operation.

I said, I still feel sad..I have also seen a dear friend try and kill herself while drunk and moping about an abortion she&#39;d had 4 years previously. I do not think that they should be allowed to make a decision of this magnitude by themselves, under any circumstances.
You seem conflicted (understandably), RF.

Either it&#39;s the woman&#39;s decision or it&#39;s not.
Should she seek councelling, fine.
Should she feel confident in her decision sans outside advice, again, fine.

If you want to stipulate mandatory pre-proceedure councelling then who is to give it?

[J'Pol]

Faceman

Once again you show maturity beyond your years. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.

Please bear in mind that adoption is also an option, though not perhaps an ideal one fore everyone. That way the parents can continue with their life, the child can have a life and a couple who maybe want but can&#39;t have children can enhance theirs and the child&#39;s life.

There are always parents who want to adopt. I know it causes problems later (sometimes) but the child does have a life.

I know several people who were adopted. They all decided to find out who their "biological" parents were, but they all also consider their adoptive parents as mum and dad.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You are being obtuse and we are ruining a perfectly good discussion. There has been some excellent posting here and if it is to be destroyed than I would rather not be a part of it. [/b]

No Im not, not at all.

<!--QuoteBegin-Jpaul
If you cannot understand that to me there is no alternative, that killing babies is wrong and that there are only very limited circumstances (for example the mothers life being at risk) where this is acceptable then I cannot make it any clearer for you.[/quote]

I meant an alternative to the current system. Your the one failing to understand what Im talking about.

So when the mothers life is at risk that is one scenario where abortion would be acceptable. Are there any others?

I am asking you to describe the system you would like to have in place instead of the current one.

How would you deal with backstreet abortions etc? Would women be allowed to leave the country to get abortions?

These are all important issues that would come up if abortion were outlawed. If you feel bringing these issues up is ruining a good debate then Im sorry, but I think they&#39;re extremely relevant.

[Rat Faced]

I think the counselling should be part of the decision process...hence "not by herself"

I dont feel conflicted...although I admit to finding it difficult to find the words to express what i feel on the subject.

Its HER decision at the end of the day...but she should not be allowed the operation without councelling...ie Education and explanation of what the psychological implications, as well as the physical may be.

I say Councelling; as i believe a trained profesional should undertake this, so she can talk freely about her feelings if she wishes to (and she should). Sometimes "someone to talk to" may be all she needs to decide NOT to go through with it.

Just taking them in and doing the op, is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Medical Service concerned in my opinion.

[clocker]

So far, we seem to have discussed abortion back and forth, side to side.
I propose we expand the topic somewhat.

What about &#39;pre-conception&#39;?
How can we make it less likely that abortion even need be considered?
JPaul,
I gather that the primary source of your beliefs re:abortion is religious.
What is your thinking on sex-education and contraception?

Personally, I find it ironic that, in my experience, many people who are against abortion are also against the education and technology (i.e. condoms, the pill, etc.) that would prevent the crisis in the first place.

Edit to respond to RF,

In the late sixties/early seventies, my first wife was a councellor at the Washington Free Clinic. To my knowledge, neither then nor now, is there anyplace where a woman simply walks in and gets an abortion on the spot. "Talking to someone" was always part of the process as was a mandatory waiting period. In the end, the councelling received was based on the questions that were asked. If the woman was only concerned about strictly medical information, then that is what she got.
If she had moral/ethical questions then there were volunteer psychologists and religious people available. If she simply wanted to talk to another woman who had been in the same position she could talk to my wife. The nature of the advice was dependent on the nature of the particular patient. I think it worked very well.

[liquidacid]

Personally, i think it is very wrong for this topic to be here. This is a very sensitive, personal subject, and chatting about it on a message board is very wrong.

Yes, of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but surely this thread is in danger of upsetting others. While debate is healthy, there is nothing to be gained here from this discussion.

This, the most painful decision a woman can ever make, is not for any of us to comment upon. For us to do so, (with inserted Smilies, and sigs) trivialises the heartbreak that is very real for many women.

CLOSE THIS THREAD. THIS IS VERY WRONG

[the_faceman]

Yes, adoption is a very real alternative, my Gran was adopted, and lost her adoptive mother at 15 years of age, then my Great-Granda lived a long life to 88 years old, that was around 6 years ago he died, and she still cries when she thinks about him, so i know for fact that someone can love their adoptive parents as much as their biological parents. I&#39;d be all for it if somehow you could be guaranteed that your child wouldn&#39;t be abandoned in some care home, maybe by arranging adoptive parents beforehand, but that brings obvious complications, it&#39;d be difficult to allow you to know your childs future parents, in case you had a change of heart 10 years down the line looking for your child, disrupting what may be a very happy "new family." Those kind of things are better dealt with using a third party, for instance the care home itself, which has to keep records i think, in case the child or parents wish to make contact, and then a message is passed on. Incidentally, my Gran found out about her true mother when she was about 50 years old, and they loved each other in a special way, but were more like best friends rather than mother and daughter, but it was still very upsetting for my gran when her biological mother died. Her mother had been forced by her family to put my Gran up for adoption, as her biological father died in a motorbike accident (virtually unheard of in the 30&#39;s i&#39;d imagine) but they weren&#39;t married, so the stigma attached to my great-grandmother and her family was immense, especially during that time period.

I apologise for going off on a tangent there, to cut a long story short, adoption can be a good alternative to abortion.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@3 July 2003 - 23:09
So far, we seem to have discussed abortion back and forth, side to side.
I propose we expand the topic somewhat.

What about &#39;pre-conception&#39;?
How can we make it less likely that abortion even need be considered?
JPaul,
I gather that the primary source of your beliefs re:abortion is religious.
What is your thinking on sex-education and contraception?

Personally, I find it ironic that, in my experience, many people who are against abortion are also against the education and technology (i.e. condoms, the pill, etc.) that would prevent the crisis in the first place.
I believe that sex education is vitally important. So much so that we (good lady and I) made sure that our 2 oldest children were aware of sexuality at an age. We discussed things when we thought the children were ready to understand it. We did not leave it up to schools to do that.

We have openly discussed sexuality, masturbation, procreation etc with them from a reasonably early age. I can certainly say that by 12 both of my eldest sons knew exactly how babies were made and how to avoid it happening. Not through school yard banter but through serious adult discussion.

Moving on to the next part, I have absolutely no problem with contraception. Indeed I would encourage the whole idea of family planning. Make sure the baby isn&#39;t made in the first place and there is no problem. I myself have practised it all of my adult life and my two eldest have been advised to do the same.

If for example the eldest is going out for the evening I will ensure that he has a condom. I won&#39;t actually check his pockets, but either his mum or I will ask him if he needs one. He has no problem with this, indeed I think he sees is as us accepting his adulthood.

Young people should be free to express their sexuality, without the fear of it affecting the rest of their lives. They should experiment and have fun. However if they get it wrong and make another person, then that person also has the right to live.

I am currently like the man who jumped out of the 120 storey building - so far so good.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by the_faceman@3 July 2003 - 23:21
Yes, adoption is a very real alternative, my Gran was adopted, and lost her adoptive mother at 15 years of age, then my Great-Granda lived a long life to 88 years old, that was around 6 years ago he died, and she still cries when she thinks about him, so i know for fact that someone can love their adoptive parents as much as their biological parents. I&#39;d be all for it if somehow you could be guaranteed that your child wouldn&#39;t be abandoned in some care home, maybe by arranging adoptive parents beforehand, but that brings obvious complications, it&#39;d be difficult to allow you to know your childs future parents, in case you had a change of heart 10 years down the line looking for your child, disrupting what may be a very happy "new family." Those kind of things are better dealt with using a third party, for instance the care home itself, which has to keep records i think, in case the child or parents wish to make contact, and then a message is passed on. Incidentally, my Gran found out about her true mother when she was about 50 years old, and they loved each other in a special way, but were more like best friends rather than mother and daughter, but it was still very upsetting for my gran when her biological mother died. Her mother had been forced by her family to put my Gran up for adoption, as her biological father died in a motorbike accident (virtually unheard of in the 30&#39;s i&#39;d imagine) but they weren&#39;t married, so the stigma attached to my great-grandmother and her family was immense, especially during that time period.

I apologise for going off on a tangent there, to cut a long story short, adoption can be a good alternative to abortion.
The way you have contributed to this thread, you go off on a tangent any time you want here mate.

If anyone doesn&#39;t like it, tell them to talk to me.

I say this while genuinely crying in real life.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Shock&Awe: (your Abortion Facts link needs a tiny bit of modification) As for Abortions compared to War deaths, so what? I don&#39;t really understand the point of that, why not compare war deaths to murders or miscarriages? That would be a similar statistic and would maybe get some more funding for these problems.

Why can&#39;t you understand the point?
The comparison was given because this is what we&#39;re talking about.
I thought the links I put were very middle of the road, if not leaning slightly towards the pro choice view.
Except for the one and only religious view.
Don&#39;t you think the religious point of view needs to be expressed as well as other points of view?
Actually is was just a quick token page that I found, but I could surely put a more representative link if you want?


Edited by Rat Faced.

Pic removed.

Although the picture was not graphic in any way, due to the nature of this topic I think its best NOT to resort to pictures that may give offence not intended, to people that have either gone through, are thinking of going through or simply have strong views on....this operation/subject.

A picture paints a thousand words, its true. They can also bring tears to the eyes, and heartache in a subject this sensitive.

[J'Pol]

I can only assume that someone asked you to remove the picture Geordie Mod.

This can mean only one of three things.

Either it is considered a fake, people don&#39;t want to face the truth or you don&#39;t think that the people here are mature enough to cope with the ramifications of the picture.

The first option is the only acceptable reason for deleting it.

[Rat Faced]

It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.

As i said, I would appreciate no pictures on such an emotive topic.

Either For or Against.

I can only see something of that sort escalating the heated feelings...and then i&#39;d have to close the topic.


Im sure you all understand.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by Jpaul
people don&#39;t want to face the truth

I will keep this very short because its OT. But apply the same logic to pictures of the US POW&#39;s that caused so much controversy and you have something of a contradiction here.

[J'Pol]

Thank you to those who made this thread an honest exchange of views. It has been a pleasure seeing people post in a genuine way.

Thank you to those who accepted that other people were entitled to hold an opinion different to their own.

I have truly felt that being part of this thread has enhanced my experience. I wish you all well and take my leave, before it becomes a negative thing.

With no apology to anyone else - a special thanks to Faceman, for helping me to have a genuine emotional response to an internet discussion.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by hobbes+3 July 2003 - 23:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 3 July 2003 - 23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@4 July 2003 - 00:41
It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.

As i said, I would appreciate no pictures on such an emotive topic.

Either For or Against.

I can only see something of that sort escalating the heated feelings...and then i&#39;d have to close the topic.


Im sure you all understand.
No, the picture was real, not a barbie doll at all. [/b][/quote]
And that makes it LESS emotive?


Please guys......just no pics.

[hobbes]

Questions for Christains:

1. "Thou shalt not kill" would indicate that abortion is a sin, punishable by death. So, if a women undergoes an abortion, then asks for forgiveness, is she not forgiven? So she sins, then is forgiven, no harm, no foul.

2. Does the "conceptus" go to eternal damnation because he has inherited Adams&#39; "original sin"? Even if we must be physically "born" into this sin, what about all those youngersters who die before accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior. All going to Hell forever?

At anyrate, if you claim that birth is necessary to inherit the original sin, then the "soul" of the aborted fetus returns to the waiting line. No harm, no foul.

If not, it goes to Hell.

Now, if I were to shrug the literal limitations of Chrsitianity and view God merely as a loving and forgiving entity (after all, if he is cruel and unforgiving- who cares about him, anyway), I would make the assumption that the sin would fall on the woman and the conceptus would be "forgiven". Again, no harm, no foul.


As someone who holds no such comfort in a loving God, I agree with JPaul, abortion is unforgiveable. There is no God to grant forgiveness and no second chance for that random conceptus. Harmful and foul.


How badly have I f*cked things up?

[hobbes]

To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" life to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells. Even after birth, the child is really just a fetus "playing outdoors". Instead of the placenta, it uses the breast for nurishment. The newborn acts from the brainstem on reflexes, and is nearly deaf and blind (his mind has yet to learn how to "use" the data these receptor organs are sending).

So at what point does the infant become alive? When he understands the concept of "cogito ergo sum", he has a sense of self identity and this occurs long after birth.

An enity should be considered "living" as long it is able to survive within the mother, without intentional, adverse intervention. Nature aborts most conceptions spontaneously(75%), it takes a real go getter to survive gestation.

[kAb]

Originally posted by hobbes@3 July 2003 - 18:04
To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" live to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells. Even after birth, the child is really just a fetus "playing outdoors". Instead of the placenta, it uses the breast for nurishment. The newborn acts from the brainstem on reflexes, and is nearly deaf and blind (his mind has yet to learn how to "use" the data these receptor organs are sending).

So at what point does the infant become alive? When he understands the concept of "cogito ergo sum", he has a sense of self identity and this occurs long after birth.

An enity should be considered "living" as long it is able to survive within the mother, without intentional, adverse intervention. Nature aborts most conceptions spontaneously(75%), it takes a real go getter to survive gestation.
its to bad that we still haven&#39;t figured out the mystery of self/soul

its more the idea that the baby will have a soul rather than &#39;when&#39;

people think its sick yes to kill a baby with fingers but no feeling, but its not any different than the fetus with two stubs..

its imagery.

im not quite sure what i&#39;m still trying to say.. but i&#39;m working on it.

[evilbagpuss]

We all know the outlawing of abortion would lead to women dumping babies and backstreet abortions.

So until someone can provide an alternative and realistic way to deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancies, the practical consequences of making anti-abortion ethics a reality would be disastrous.

This is the thing with ethics, its easy to be philosophical but the bottom line is that there is a practical problem to be dealt with and we need a practical solution.

I think the status quo strikes the best balance possible.

[hobbes]

Ethics are a luxury to be sure. I rented a 4 bedroom apartment in Columbia, MO with 2 friends, the 4th room already ocupied by a black man from Guinea Bissau (one of the 10th poorest countries in the world, located on the west coast of Africa). He was sponsored by his government to study Entymology in hopes he could assist in improving agriculture.

Somehow the topic of abortion arose, he stated that he had caused 10 women to request abortions. These were offered free by his government. When I asked him how he felt about this he replied, "You gotta get the shit out of there".

His government felt it better to abort, than support, for it had no money, no food and no jobs to offer. Religion in the country listed as 5% Christian.



However, religion and ethics are not synonymous. Religion defines strict rules of conduct, without room for arbitration. Since Christianity is still the dominate form of religion in the US, politicians are careful not to lose their support, especially when they espouse these beliefs themselves, and our national policies reflect this.
After all, life is evanescent, eternity is eternal.

[MagicNakor]

Realize, also, that there is a vast spectrum of beliefs under what is classified "Christianity," so saying Christian-belief-this and Christian-belief-that isn&#39;t terribly convincing either.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

I have stated, more-or-less, that a woman should have access to abortion.

However, I believe the process of providing legal, across-the-board, no-questions-asked abortions has had the effect of precluding the necessity of due thought before the deed is done.

I am aware some (though not all) abortion providers have counseling available on-site, but this counselling is provided on request only; other than a bald offer of same, no effort is made to ascertain an in-depth state-of-mind.

What if the candidate is 12, 13, 14 years of age? How could anyone that young understand why counselling would even be considered necessary?

This does happen; in some cases a child of this age, upon discerning a pregnancy, merely needs to find a sympathetic adult ear who will consent to fill the role of an adult willing to chaperone the child through the process; Mom and/or Dad needn&#39;t be the wiser.

So-the abortion takes place, the child suffers a scar (sometimes) of a magnitude she should never have had to endure, and Mom and Dad are precluded from parental input that might provide some comfort and support.

I also recall an earlier mention of "guilt" in this thread (of this I am sure; it was me who mentioned it) which garnered a subsequent comment to the effect of "who are you to inflict guilt on a child/girl/woman over a decision that is hers, and hers alone, to make?"

How is it that guilt got such a bad rap?

I can understand wishing to avoid guilt; feeling guilt makes one feel, well, just awful.

But so much of what we abhor in this world is due to the over-weaning avoidance of guilt and stigma.

Feelings of guilt are part of the human condition; stigma is the attachment of societal judgement.

The avoidance of stigma, and the legal efforts that are made to aid in this endeavor, have led to such utter silliness as the recent judicial gymnastics over the public&#39;s right to know whether or not they would be apprised in a timely manner that a sexual deviant had come to roost in their neighborhood.

Such is the state of the current legal effort to ameliorate stigma.

Guilt is a slightly different story; guilt, and the prospect of suffering same, is what generally keeps us from being amoral violators of any principle of civilized behavior. Guilt is the lash we use on ourselves, not what others think of our behavior.

What could possibly be wrong with a society wherein a wee bit of guilt entered into the consideration of sexual activity could possibly result in a non-pregnancy?

Is the avoidance of guilt more important than what would regretfully follow?

[clocker]

Jeez j2.
It&#39;s late and this one is going to require some thought.

A few first impressions...

Speaking for myself only, all of my posts which advocated a woman&#39;s right to abortion presumed a certain level of maturity/age. I wasn&#39;t talking about children, for goodness sake.

For a pregnant 12 year old I would imagine that the possibility of abortion is just the tip of the iceberg problem-wise.

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s fairly certain that, should a woman (I&#39;m going to be side-stepping the 11/12 year old "issue" that&#39;s recently been raised) decide to have an abortion, she&#39;s going to feel a fair amount of guilt anyway. Why add to that? It certainly won&#39;t make her feel any better. Considering the hormone-wreaking havoc being dealt with during pregnancy, and its end, adding more emotional turmoil to that mix is just not a Good Idea. Should we bring back the scarlet letter? I&#39;m sure we could attach other words to it.

:ninja:

[ilw]

Originally posted by hobbes@4 July 2003 - 04:04
To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" life to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells.

As i pointed out earlier in this topic my personal opinion and i think one of the major factors in deciding the deadline for abortions is that of nervous system and brain development. Personally I have no problem if the foetus has recognisable toes, hands, fingers or even a face, if theres nothing capable of feeling pain or responding to stimuli then for me it is simply not alive just as someone who is brain dead is not alive.
Life for me is not really something that special and mystical, a small cluster of cells which will probably develop into something much more complex is amazing, but in its current state not inherently valuable. Obviously we place value on what these cells develop into, but if the baby that the foetus will develop into is unwanted it seems natural to me that the value we place on the foetus will be diminished maybe to the extent that the mother takes the choice to abort it.
There will always be mothers who feel that abortion is the only way, to put undue pressure on them by treating it akin to infanticide will only drive abortion underground again which would lead to a much worse state of affairs.

[j2k4]

This scope of this topic doesn&#39;t need expansion, but I thought the recent reaction of Planned Parenthood to Bush&#39;s Aids program for Africa was kind of interesting:


Administration&#39;s HIV/AIDS Initiative Is Disastrous Public Health Policy

President Bush Visit to Africa is Mere Photo Op


July 3, 2003

(Washington, DC) - President Bush will use his trip to Africa beginning on Monday to tout his five-year, &#036;15 billion anti-AIDS initiative, but it is unlikely that he will discuss the disastrous impact of the policies - and the domestic political concerns - behind it. The Bush AIDS initiative extends the administration&#39;s war on international family planning to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in developing countries. One-third of the new AIDS prevention money for Africa will be directed to groups that take narrow and ineffective approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention by excluding condoms and relying on "abstinence-only" messages. These are precisely the policies pushed by the President&#39;s right-wing base.

"When it comes to finding and implementing good strategies to defeat the scourge of AIDS in Africa, sound public health policies should never take a back seat to ideology. Yet that is what has happened with President Bush&#39;s AIDS initiative," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Millions of lives are at stake. We should be making the best use of these scarce resources, but the Bush policies waste money and cost lives."

The "abstinence-only" provisions of the Bush AIDS initiative were deliberately crafted by right-wing groups to prevent family planning providers from receiving the new AIDS funding. These family planning organizations, however, are best situated to help prevent and treat AIDS.

Many family planning providers in Africa have a long history of integrated service delivery for women and their families, a comprehensive approach to sexuality education, vast experience providing voluntary counseling and testing for sexually transmitted infection prevention, an ability to target at-risk populations, and extensive networks on the ground providing services. This enables them to quickly and effectively target additional HIV/AIDS funds to those most in need.

"Comprehensive family planning providers like Planned Parenthood and many other organizations working across Africa are critical to the fight against AIDS. They are known and trusted. They have established infrastructures in resource-poor countries. But they will likely be excluded from funding under the president&#39;s AIDS initiative. This will cripple any effort to effectively defeat the AIDS epidemic in Africa," added Feldt.

"Planned Parenthood is committed to doing the hard work to make sure that the American people understand the impact of this administration&#39;s extreme policies on women and their families in the most impoverished countries around the world. That is how we will change and improve our nation&#39;s policies," Feldt said.



This is an interesting viewpoint in light of the following, which is part of their mission statement:


International Family Planning
Planned Parenthood Federation of America affirms the fundamental right of each individual to manage his/her fertility free from coercion. It is Planned Parenthood&#39;s policy:

to support international programs which are designed to increase access to safe and effective means of voluntary fertility regulation;
to advocate and assist in the expansion of voluntary family planning services throughout the world;
to encourage public and governmental attitudes and policies favorable to the continuation and expansion of United States support for international voluntary family planning programs;
to provide leadership in encouraging other countries to address population issues and to develop their own effective voluntary family planning programs;
to assist community groups, agencies, and institutions in developing countries to undertake innovative, effective, and self-supporting voluntary family planning programs.



Planned Parenthood seeks legal protection to maintain unfettered control of private monies it receives; it seems they now want the same control over the taxpayer&#39;s cash Bush wants to spend in Africa to fight aids.

They apparently feel Bush is overstepping into their area of expertise.

Should Planned Parenthood be attempting to hijack the President&#39;s international policy?

Or are they just trying to expand their "empire"?

My apologies for diverting/expanding the thread.

[ilw]

Divert away, this was almost the original theme of this topic. As far as i&#39;m concerned i think someone must take over from Bush in this area because I feel it is clear that the billions being spent are not being used in an effective way. 5 billion on abstinence and programs pushing Christianity seems ludicrous to me. Obviously America can distribute its aid however it pleases, but the funding here sounds like someone is furthering their personal agenda instead of providing real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner. For those who didn&#39;t read the post that sparked this one, heres the link (its another report of the same ilk as j2k4&#39;s last post)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3028820.stm

And anyone interested in the possibility of america changing its rules on abortion theres a little information here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3026248.stm

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@4 July 2003 - 08:04
Obviously America can distribute its aid however it pleases, but the funding here sounds like someone is furthering their personal agenda instead of providing real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner.
ilw-

In your opinion, what would constitute "real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner"?

[ilw]

Aid that was being spent as well as possible to alleviate suffering and objectively improve peoples lives, instead of in this case trying to fulfill personal goals by spreading a belief system.
The &#39;real&#39; was a mistake from when i changed the sentence sorry

[j2k4]

I would have to assert, here, Planned Parenthood&#39;s mission statement constitutes a belief system, also.

Granted, the "belief system" would change, depending, I guess, on who is president, but how can you say lives will not be improved?

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?

[ilw]

My point isn&#39;t that the aid shouldn&#39;t be given, just that its being wasted. I know i&#39;m carrying the analogy too far, but...
in your brief example

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?
I&#39;d extend that to:
wouldn&#39;t u be pissed off if loads of you & your countrymen were drowning and a saviour came along in a rickety boat, only able to save a few because the rest of the money (that could have been spent building a big boat to save hundreds) had been spent putting priests on the boat who were there to convert the few they saved?
Sorry thats taking the example way too far, but its a flavour of how i see it. Obviously any boat is welcome, but still...

[ilw]

My point isn&#39;t that the aid shouldn&#39;t be given, just that its being wasted. I know i&#39;m carrying the analogy too far, but...
in your brief example

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?
I&#39;d extend that to:
wouldn&#39;t u be pissed off if loads of you & your countrymen were drowning and a saviour came along in a rickety boat, only able to save a few because the rest of the money (that could have been spent building a big boat to save hundreds) had been spent putting priests on the boat who were there to convert the few they saved?
Sorry thats taking the example way too far, but its a flavour of how i see it. Obviously any boat is welcome, but still...

[j2k4]

I&#39;ll grant you make your point even though I disagree.

I&#39;m not going to say "be glad they&#39;re getting any aid at all"; that would be uncharitable and objectionable on any number of levels.

What I am saying is this:

With the money comes (apparently) a religious component that some find mis-placed.

How could one determine how much of the total worth of the program is "wrongly" absorbed by this religious component?

Any religious personnel involved are trained in some form of medical endeavor (hands-on or logistical support/problem solving types); they don&#39;t issue booster shots, birth control, and religious indoctrination in equal measures.

Neither do I think Planned Parenthood is the only organization qualified to dispense information or education having to do with sexual reproduction or contraceptive birth control.

If teaching, or more appropriately, "pointing out" the effectiveness of abstinence as part of the education is part of the mix, so what?

They will still do as they want-at least they&#39;ll have been made aware of a method that works every time it is tried-a method that is conspicuous in it&#39;s absence from Planned Parenthood&#39;s considerable arsenal.

[ilw]

I agree of course that the money isn&#39;t wasted being spent on teaching the virtues of abstinence or on sending undoubtedly well trained staff to the affected areas, but I would add that abstinence will also be one of the options counselled by the Planned Parenthood group, its just that they will consider alternatives.

[Rat Faced]

The problem is that Bush appears to think that all these 3rd world countries have the same cuture as the USA and the rest of the western hemisphere.

...ie that women can say NO....that they have a choice.



In a lot of these cultures, women have no rights.

If a man wants sex, he takes it, and is rarely if ever prosecuted for Rape.



In addition, many women are forced into Prostitution, or in some cases Prostitution is just a way of life...a way to put food on the table.

They cant just "not put out", or their kids will starve.



Abstinance in these places is a non-starter.

[clocker]

"Just Say No" is a stupendously ineffective tactic to use in this instance.
Why waste taxpayer&#39;s money on a campaign that has zero chance of being effective?
I think in this case Bush is clearly using my money in a campaign to solidify his political position with the Christian voters.
In effect, American foreign aid has become just another political tool in the Republican reelection effort.

Bloody stupid waste of time and effort.

[j2k4]

Clocker:

"Just say no" is the anti-drug slogan.

Rat:

I think abstinence is actually a more applicable and effective principle here in the U.S. where women have a choice.

It would necessarily be less effective in a society such as you describe, but:

Clocker:

I&#39;m pretty sure the mere mention of abstinence will neither harm the effort nor add significantly to it&#39;s cost.

ilw:

I am used to hearing Planned parenthood denounce abstinence as an ineffective and intrusive idea pushed by the right; indeed they seem to advocate "abstention" from abstinence-I don&#39;t believe they&#39;ve changed their mind as to it&#39;s theoretical efficacy.

[clocker]

One-third of the new AIDS prevention money for Africa will be directed to groups that take narrow and ineffective approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention by excluding condoms and relying on "abstinence-only" messages. These are precisely the policies pushed by the President&#39;s right-wing base.

J2,
I am well aware that "Just Say No" is the official name for Nancy Reagan&#39;s
pitifully misguided foray into the War on Drugs.


I&#39;m pretty sure the mere mention of abstinence will neither harm the effort nor add significantly to it&#39;s cost.

Diverting money from an organization with a proven track record to groups who&#39;s main approach is "JSN" won&#39;t add to the cost, simply dilute the potential effectiveness of the money spent. The "JSN" approach failed in San Diego, why think it will work in Sierra Leone?

[j2k4]

Actually, I have to say I haven&#39;t seen anything other than an abortion that could be said to work, so I guess I have nothing more to offer on the subject.

[liquidacid]

I&#39;ve just read some truly horrible ranting by JPaul, where he accuses women who choose to end a pregnancy of commiting infanticide. What gives anyone the right to pass such damning judgement on so very many women?


infanticide noun 1 the murder of a young child or infant. 2 someone who murders a young child or infant. 3 the practice of killing newborn children. infanticidal adj.
From Chambers Dictionary (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/index.php)

While it can certainly be argued at what stage of developement a foetus may be when an abortion takes place, you cannot refer to it as an infant.

Jpaul.
As i posted previously, the decision to terminate a pregancy must be the most heartbreaking decision a woman can make. What effect do you think your accusations could have on someone. Would you accuse someone, who&#39;d had an abortion, of infanticide if they were in the same room, to their face? No, you would not. Can you imagine a woman crumpling in front of you, destroyed by your words?
While this is the internet, i think in this case you should still consider the effects your arrogant opinionatedness might have on someone.

I&#39;m sure your going to condemn me as being too immature to be able to debate this topic. Well, i&#39;m a (male) mental health nurse (grade G) with 11 years experience. I studied general nursing during my training and know exactly how traumatised a young woman can be following a terminated pregnancy. I also know that it is something very many woman never get over completely.




PLEASE CLOSE THIS POST.

[Insanity]

Actually, some women do not give a toss about unwanted preganancy. My mate thought, so what? I get this abortion free, and it does not fu*k up my life&#33;

Me and her are no longer mates. I would be but it was the way she went about it.

[Rat Faced]

Ok Guys.

Emotive issue.

We went with it as much as we could.

People are now getting upset, and we now think its time to close the topic of "Abortion".

I know that there are "spinoffs", that came out of the thread...eg Aid to 3rd world countries etc.

Please feel free to start another thread on these topics.

Rat Faced

[Insanity]

I really don&#39;t understand why the other topic was locked, you chaps were stating your views not arguing over it <_<

So lets continue....

As far as i&#39;m concerned, it all depends on the circumstances......

[Rat Faced]

Very simple.

We allowed it, on condition...

People are getting upset now.

Ladies that have gone through it for example, and men too.

This decision was not taken by myself alone.

The topic is ****Closed****

[j2k4]

Consider this a report from myself; the result of a bit of research on a topic of interest:

Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe", of Roe vs. Wade, has recently begun an effort to have the landmark Supreme Court decision overturned.

She claims to have been a rootless, ungrounded "street person" when, at the age of 21, she found herself pregnant.

She concocted a tale of rape so as to avail herself of legal aid in dealing with her problem.

Her lawyers, she now says, favored abortion; they commenced to "deceive" and "use" her to forward their own agenda, telling her the life growing inside her was nothing but "tissue".

After the successful argument of her case before the Supreme Court, McCorvey became a feminist icon, and was offered work in various abortion clinics.

What she says she witnessed while toiling in these clinics gradually wore on her; the de-personalization of the client, the abortion act, and the resultant "waste" eventually caused her to turn away in horror, disgust and sadness.

I will not recount here any of the graphic aspects of her experiences as she relates them in her court proceeding.

McCorvey&#39;s lawyer, Allan Parker, is the founder of the Justice Foundation, a human rights interest.

He figures he has an excellent chance of success, using as a blueprint the argument outlined by Thurgood Marshall in his case "Brown vs. Board of Education", which resulted in the overturning of "Plessy vs. Ferguson", legally ending segregation in public schools.

Marshall claimed, and proved, segregation did demonstrable harm to black children and their chances at education.

In this vein, Parker calls for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned on the grounds Roe "deprived women of all protection from the dangers of abortion."

He provides affidavits from 1000 women in testament to physical, psychological and emotional damage they suffered as a result of their abortions; and for which risk was never addressed beforehand.

These risks were not largely known in 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was decided.

Such is not the case these days.

The advances in scientific medicine in the intervening years yield a better opportunity for the current court to re-examine and decide with a greater degree of certitude the issue of "when life actually begins".

An important development in Texas, of all places, bears upon this case:

In 1999, the Texas legislature passed law under which the state of Texas will commit to, and provide for, the upbringing of every child, up too the age of 18, while guaranteeing the privacy of the mother, and, in effect, establishing the "right" not to have to care for an unwanted child-no questions asked.

It is hoped this law will lower the number of abortions in Texas by the twin provisions of care for the child and privacy for the mother.

McCorvey&#39;s plea was recently thrown out by a federal judge in Texas; her lawyer, Mr. Parker, is determined to eventually argue his case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In round terms, I support McCorvey&#39;s effort and applaud the Texas law.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish with regard to my expression of support; I&#39;ll gladly try to correct any mis-perceptions.

[MagicNakor]

It seems I read through the same court transcript you did. However, this isn&#39;t the first time Roe vs Wade&#39;s been challenged in court, and it likely won&#39;t be the last, although I am glad that the judge threw the matter out this time.

There&#39;s really two stumbling blocks here: "protection from the dangers of abortion," and determining "when life actually begins."

For the former, there is an inherent risk of physical harm due to the nature of the operation. However, there&#39;s also an inherent risk in carrying a pregnancy to term, in giving birth, and in the healing process afterwards. There is the risk that, when I step outside, I&#39;ll be smacked with a car when I&#39;m crossing the road. There&#39;s always a risk when a person undergoes surgery of even the most minute sort. I&#39;ve previously stated about the hormonal influences on mood, so, unless it&#39;s required, I won&#39;t rewrite it.

For the latter, there is an unfortunate number of ways to discern the beginning of life. People in the "Right To Life" movement will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Various Christians will tell you that God creates life prior to conception. Rev. Charles Henderson (Presbyterian minister and Christian scholar) clarifies this:


...Indeed, the very notion of "conception" in the Bible does not refer to the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, rather conception is what happens when God creates someone or something...the basic biblical teaching about the beginning of life is that it happens at God’s initiative, by God’s command, in God’s mind. The Biblical writers did not even have the notion of conception that we have arrived at only recently through scientific investigation. They believed that the male sperm was the "seed" of life and that this seed is "planted" in the womb where it grows like any other seed. Clearly, in this, the biblical view, our notion of "conception" has no place. Human life no more begins at conception than the apple begins when an apple seed finds its way into the ground.

The relatively modern idea that life begins at conception is entirely unbiblical. Not only that, it is more in accord with a purely humanistic perspective for it places the initiative for life in the hands of the human parents. Life begins, not in the mind of God, but in the womb of a woman following intercourse. That this notion of how life begins postdates the Bible entirely does not seem to matter to those who rely upon it. So familiar are we moderns with the basic "facts of life," that we sometimes confuse "fact" with "theology," and raise scientific knowledge to the level of revealed truth. In fact, the notion that life begins at conception, substitutes a humanistic notion for a clear biblical teaching, and makes scientific understanding do the work of biblical faith. This may be a good and valid substitution to make, given what we know about how life begins, but it’s important that those who make such moves understand what it is they are doing. When someone argues that life begins at conception, and should be morally and legally protected from that point forward, they have no stronger legs to stand on than those who argue that life begins at birth. Both points of view are arbitrary, and one can claim no greater religious or theological authority for one than the other...

Yet more will say that life begins at consciousness (although how do you measure consciousness?), and others will say life begins at birth, or when the fetus is viable (capable of life outside the womb). It becomes a chicken and egg argument, much like most other debates concerning abstract ideas.

Do you have more information on that Texas law? Although the state may provide for every child, what percentage of them are going to be below the poverty line? If it&#39;s anything similar to the basic welfare contributions of the USA, the "support" given by the state isn&#39;t going to be nearly enough to care for and raise a child. It is, however, unlikely that Dickens-style workhouses (a la Oliver Twist) will spring up overnight.

:ninja:

[clocker]

Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2003 - 17:42
Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.
I will try to expand on my thoughts tomorrow.

[j2k4]

Excellent quote; I haven&#39;t knowledge of it&#39;s author, either.

As time is a consideration, I&#39;ll ask:

As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.

[Rat Faced]

Uh uh.....now j2k4, no trying to sneak in the back door.

Wait until i get a concensus from the Mods and Admins on this.... <_<

[Rat Faced]

OK.


This topic is being re-opened.


However; it will be MODERATED closely.

Rules:

1/ NO PICTURES

2/ NO CONDEMNATION OR FLAMING

eg: No accusations of horrific crimes etc.....


We WILL delete individual posts; if they seem overly zealous... to try and keep the topic open, and it may be closed for further deliberation at any time.


I&#39;ve taken the liberty of merging all 3 of the threads.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 09:05


As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.
Firstly, thanks to RF and Lamsey ( and any other mods involved) for reopening this topic.

I have no problem at all, j2, in trying to reduce the number of abortions performed. Dissemination of information is a good thing.
I am leery, given Bush&#39;s propensity to snuggle up to the Christian right, that such a program, not husbanded by Planned Parenthood, would evolve into a government funded form of dissuasion rather than education.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+7 July 2003 - 19:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 7 July 2003 - 19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 09:05


As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of&nbsp; extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.
Firstly, thanks to RF and Lamsey ( and any other mods involved) for reopening this topic.

I have no problem at all, j2, in trying to reduce the number of abortions performed. Dissemination of information is a good thing.
I am leery, given Bush&#39;s propensity to snuggle up to the Christian right, that such a program, not husbanded by Planned Parenthood, would evolve into a government funded form of dissuasion rather than education.[/b][/quote]
My thanks to the relevant mods also-Rat-I though you said other angles were okay, as long as we stepped away from the nuts-and-bolts and kept to peripheral issues; sorry I mis-understood; I wasn&#39;t my intent to get around you.

Clocker-

We agree on this, except for the involvement of Planned Parenthood. While it is very apparent (or should be) to all, the best way to change the "abortion" landscape is to change attitudes with regard to sexual practices and contraception. Planned Parenthood wishes to have total control of this issue and be accorded a singularly "expert" status (think in terms of the N.E.A.&#39;s hammerlock on education issues). They are not about to concede any part of the issue to any other entity without a fight; They don&#39;t want to debate the efficacy of another voice on the issue, they want the other voice silenced.

Watch what happens as Bush pushes his AIDS program in Africa.

[jetje]

Originally posted by kAb@3 July 2003 - 07:16
In other cases, where the woman had the choice to be protected but didn&#39;t bother to etc., no.

What about the responsibility of the guy.............&#33; <_<

It is so easy to judge a woman while you can walk away from your responsibility <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by jetje+8 July 2003 - 07:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje &#064; 8 July 2003 - 07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kAb@3 July 2003 - 07:16
In other cases, where the woman had the choice to be protected but didn&#39;t bother to etc., no.

What about the responsibility of the guy.............&#33; <_<

It is so easy to judge a woman while you can walk away from your responsibility <_<[/b][/quote]
Women have my empathy, believe me, but am I to understand that there are no circumstances under which a woman might bear some culpability?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.

I&#39;m really out of the loop on this, but I&#39;m glad to see the thread open once again.
If you want to see the deleted pic from page 5 of this thread go here
Deleted Image (http://www.google.com)
Rat Faced is right&#33;
The symbology is potent.
:D
Btw Rat, I&#39;m not trying to be an assh**e or something by posting the link.
If you don&#39;t feel it&#39;s appropriate or just too inflamitory feel free to delete.



*The decision was made on images. They are not appropriate in this thread&#33;

[clintonesque]

Well luckily i live in a country where it is legal. It will prevent a lot of ruined lives for kids and mothers... Cases like rape are mentioned but also for mentally disabled people that doesn&#39;t have the ability to raise kids, for stupid young kids that were just dumb, for junks that accidently get pregnant.... It will prevent lives in missery for the people involved and the unborn child.
Ofcourse there is a certain timeline... at some point it is to late for an abortion, that has to be regulated well.

Woman in our country believe they are boss in own belly... i think that&#39;s their right

i think what should happen is more freely spoken about sexuality, good sexual education and explanings about birthcontrol and anti-conception product.
Also condoms must become cheaper and easier available...&#33;
Also the right for an abortion would help a lot of people that are searching for one to be able to get the right medical care in stead of going to an underground butcher that does it if you pay enough money...&#33;

My take exactly.

Good unbiased council too would help.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 08:55

Well luckily i live in a country where it is legal. It will prevent a lot of ruined lives for kids and mothers... Cases like rape are mentioned but also for mentally disabled people that doesn&#39;t have the ability to raise kids, for stupid young kids that were just dumb, for junks that accidently get pregnant.... It will prevent lives in missery for the people involved and the unborn child.
Ofcourse there is a certain timeline... at some point it is to late for an abortion, that has to be regulated well.

Woman in our country believe they are boss in own belly... i think that&#39;s their right

i think what should happen is more freely spoken about sexuality, good sexual education and explanings about birthcontrol and anti-conception product.
Also condoms must become cheaper and easier available...&#33;
Also the right for an abortion would help a lot of people that are searching for one to be able to get the right medical care in stead of going to an underground butcher that does it if you pay enough money...&#33;

My take exactly.

Good unbiased council too would help.
Exactly.

It should be noted that Planned Parenthood&#39;s council does not qualify as "unbiased."

[Neil__]

I think the word PLANNED gives that away j2k4

Neil

[clintonesque]

Thats exeptable too. lol

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:17
I think the word PLANNED gives that away j2k4

Neil
You are, of course, correct. ;)

I apologize for allowing my bias to force this regretful redundancy.

[Everose]

I have read this thread and the various deep beliefs and experiences that have led to them. I can sympathize with men who are not considered in a woman&#39;s choice and the heartbreak and anger and frustration that could result.

I am really concerned about abortion used as a means of birth control, and also what is called partial birth abortions. I don&#39;t think there is always mandated counseling, and I wish there were.

I guess I would like to say that I admire Clocker&#39;s objectivity. It sounds to me like he has witnessed tough decisions that were made not just for the convenience of the woman involved.

And he realizes unless you have walked a mile in someone&#39;s shoes, you really have no clue.

I often wonder how a woman led to the decision by what is best for everyone involved, even the unborn child, totally comsumed by emotional, financial and physical stress goes through when she drives to the clinic ..........maybe if only one person would hold their hand out and say &#39;I will do everything within my power to help you have your baby....&#39; But by things I have seen on tv, she doesn&#39;t often get that by those outside the clinic. She receives only insults and ridicule by the protestors. I am afraid that would only reinforce any feelings she has about bringing a baby into such an &#39;understanding&#39; world.

I don&#39;t know. I don&#39;t have the answers. I think that if each and every one of us reached out......and maybe helped one woman, we could start to effect change. I hope to have that chance someday in someway.

Clevertoes

I am having mixed emotions when it comes to the God I know and love. I feel abortion is a sin. But I also feel that setting ones self up to judge another for their extremely painful hard decisions is also against God&#39;s laws. I somehow feel that God forgives, even to those that cannot forgive themselves. And my heart goes out to them.

[Infested Cats]

The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.

The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.

The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its&#39; host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.

The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of &#39;right&#39; it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.

This in essence is the case for a woman&#39;s moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.

[Everose]

Well, I guess the struggle then is between the heart and the mind? ;-)

I will have to say I personally know a woman who struggled with a fear of tiolets flushing. So much so that her family offered to pay for her to be hypnotized to see if they could get to the root of her problem. She was taken clear back, to past lives to the point where she saw a woman with red hair who was crying....clear back to where it became obvious that she was actually an embryo miscarried into a tiolet. I know this may seem far fetched to many. And I myself have no clue as to the exactness of being hypnotized in this way.

But to hear of something like this..........kind of makes your heart lead and your head spin.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Infested Cats@12 July 2003 - 06:45
...a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being...
To be perfectly frank, a fetus fits the description of a parasite. Pro-lifers don&#39;t generally like to hear that. If one were to get nitpicky, it&#39;d be an obligate parasite.

:ninja:

[ScotchGuy]

I&#39;m completely for abortion. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that this world is much too overpopulated for it&#39;s own good. So what&#39;s the big deal if the woman who was having a child decided that she didn&#39;t want it anymore. It personally doesn&#39;t bother me in the least, it&#39;s their choice.

While the baby is in the womb it really is not a human yet, it has no thought process, it cannot even comprehend what&#39;s going on. So if it dies then what&#39;s the big deal, it happens all the time. Who cares how it dies, it&#39;s not even a real human.

MagicNakor stated that "a fetus fits the description of a parasite." So basically having an abortion is similar to destroying a parasite. Makes sense now why so many people are against abortion. :rolleyes:

Also I&#39;m incredibly sick of seeing children being born constantly and growing up having a terrible life because the parents didn&#39;t want them in the first place. If the Catholic church hates suffering and is against death of a fetus, then why aren&#39;t they against the fact that because a woman coudn&#39;t have an abortion this poor child, through no fault of its own will live a horrible life because their parents didn&#39;t care for them or even want them around. It will probably slip through the cracks of our education system and end up at the age of 50 living on the street hassling people for some money so they can get drunk or do crack. So what&#39;s the point of putting a person through this, why not destroy the parasite and save someone the agony of living a terrible life. More space and air for the rest of us, and more happy people. Now I&#39;m not saying that just because your parents hated you and didn&#39;t want you will you end up leading a terrible life, but it is much more likely then if you were to grow up in a loving family.

All I know is that if I had the choice as a fetus to either die and go to heaven (which is what the Catholics believe will happen if you die in the womb) or to be born with parents that hate me and don&#39;t want me, I would definitely choose the first option.

[DarkBlizzard]

Abotion needs to be illegal and us guys will just have to not be as stupid and not f*ck a girl u meet while u were walkin the streets with ur buddys

[ScotchGuy]

Perhaps, but how on Earth would it ever be possible to get every male on the planet to "stop fucking girls". Maybe if we asked nicely. Point is it takes two to tango, if the girl doesn&#39;t want to get pregnant maybe she shouldn&#39;t be having sex, hmm there&#39;s a thought.

[Rat Faced]

DarkBlizzard,

thanks for the opinion...however you forgot to give your reasons.

I suspect that they are religious in nature, however you havent gave an argument either way.

[MagicNakor]

Indeed, ScotchGuy. And rape is just something the media made up.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Infested Cats-I just couldn&#39;t let this slide.


Herewith The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.

Herewith, apparently, a nature lesson.

The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.

I have, in the past, been asked to "grasp the difference"; which request generally sets forth parameters of narrow enough scope as to exclude views at any remove from those one is requested to "differentiate" between. In this case, it presumes a conclusion which leaves unanswered the question of "When does life begin?". Infested Cats, I can&#39;t believe you have so quickly and cleanly disposed of an argument the country&#39;s greatest legal and scientific minds have yet to resolve.

The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its&#39; host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.

Some may take issue with certain suppositions contained here; the issue of "animal rights"-it is correct that animals do not possess rights, at least not in the sense they are capable of exercising them in order to oppose the harmful intent of another animal or a human being. Humans instead concoct "rights", and attempt to exercise them for, or on behalf of, animals. Humans do this in order that animals might benefit from the human ability to offer them extraordinary protection.
A human fetus is no more capable than an animal of requesting protection, but certain of us might argue it is no less deserving of same as the mere fact of having been born does not confer survivability, but it is legally sufficient (for now, at least) to reasonably ensure an adult will render care.


The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of &#39;right&#39; it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.

If this is an argument or analogy of some type, I cannot discern what it might be.

This in essence is the case for a woman&#39;s moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.

As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.

Please try again, IC.

[DarkBlizzard]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 July 2003 - 15:39
DarkBlizzard,

thanks for the opinion...however you forgot to give your reasons.

I suspect that they are religious in nature, however you havent gave an argument either way.
I dont think abortion needs to be illegal because of anything that has to do with religion, EDIT: but it should be illegal.....im just saying it needs to be illegal cuz you shouldn&#39;t be killing a human just because you screwed up and did something that your taught not to do with some random person just because you "love" them....if some guy really does love a girl then he should marry her.....if she says no then they were not met for each other and that guy needs to just go find some other girl that does love him......then marry her and f*ck all day long. And if abortion was illegal i think it would greatly cut down on AIDS and other horrible diseases because the girls will know that if they have sex with the guy then she will probably get pregnant and WILL have that kid. Im sure none of you would like it if your parents werent married and they were in some hotel and decided to have sex and your mom got pregnant and she had you killed because she didnt care about you because your not at all important to her.

[Infested Cats]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 July 2003 - 20:31
Please try again, IC.
I&#39;m sorry j2k4. I shouldn&#39;t have bothered trying in the first place. Right?

I&#39;m not trying to convince anyone, I&#39;m just stating my opinion. Please don&#39;t accuse me of being "uninformed."

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Infested Cats+12 July 2003 - 21:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Infested Cats &#064; 12 July 2003 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 July 2003 - 20:31
Please try again, IC.
I&#39;m sorry j2k4. I shouldn&#39;t have bothered trying in the first place. Right?

I&#39;m not trying to convince anyone, I&#39;m just stating my opinion. Please don&#39;t accuse me of being "uninformed."[/b][/quote]
Not at all, IC.

I&#39;m glad (believe it or not) you took the time; usually I find less to object to-I find your posting to be, shall we say, a bit original, but other than an anti-Bush bias and an occasional gripe about the government or "establishment" issues, you are usually sharper (I think) when you resort to reasoning.

I didn&#39;t (don&#39;t) want to offend, but I discerned in your post a certain presumptuousness I felt I had to match.

And we are all aware what a know-it-all I am, right?

I have that problem-I surely do-but I&#39;m trying to remember to couch things as "my opinion only", and I&#39;m sure I forget as often as I remember.

I regret giving you the impression you got, and will refrain from accusing you of being uninformed, as to do so would be "presumptuous".

I&#39;ll continue to remember I&#39;m expressing my opinion if you do likewise-fair enough? :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by DarkBlizzard+12 July 2003 - 18:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DarkBlizzard @ 12 July 2003 - 18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 July 2003 - 15:39
DarkBlizzard,

thanks for the opinion...however you forgot to give your reasons.

I suspect that they are religious in nature, however you havent gave an argument either way.
I dont think abortion needs to be illegal because of anything that has to do with religion.....im just saying it needs to be illegal cuz you shouldn&#39;t be killing a human just because you screwed up and did something that your taught not to do with some random person just because you "love" them....if soem guy really does love a girl then he should marry her.....if she says no then they were not met for each other and that guy needs to just go find some other girl that does love him......then marry her and f*ck all day long. And if abortion was illegal i think it would greatly cut down on AIDS and other horrible diseases because the girls will know that if they have sex with the guy then she will probably get pregnant and WILL have that kid. Im sure none of you would like it if your parents werent married and they were in some hotel and decided to have sex and your mom got pregnant and she had you killed because she didnt care about you because your not at all important to her. [/b][/quote]
DB,

[hobbes]

Exactly Clocker,

Sometimes the best response is no response.

I think DB should quietly return to the lounge and venture back here in about 10 years.

[clocker]

I shall try again...

DB,
You keep using one scenario as an exemplar of why abortion should be illegal. Although I have no doubt that such things occur, I don&#39;t think that your instance of &#39;bad behaviour&#39; rises to the level of universiality necessary to make an informed decision. In other words, it may happen, but not often enough to overshadow the occasions where irresponsibilty/wantoness played no part .

Also, I believe that Africa is the area most severely tested by AIDS and I fail to see how banning abortion would help there. Cultural/religious/education issues are more to blame than "mates walking down street" looking for an easy shag.

[DarkBlizzard]

Originally posted by clocker@12 July 2003 - 22:42
I shall try again...

DB,
You keep using one scenario as an exemplar of why abortion should be illegal. Although I have no doubt that such things occur, I don&#39;t think that your instance of &#39;bad behaviour&#39; rises to the level of universiality necessary to make an informed decision. In other words, it may happen, but not often enough to overshadow the occasions where irresponsibilty/wantoness played no part .

Also, I believe that Africa is the area most severely tested by AIDS and I fail to see how banning abortion would help there. Cultural/religious/education issues are more to blame than "mates walking down street" looking for an easy shag.
Im not saying anything about Africa...my opinions are about my country....the United States....and i do know alot of girls that have had abotions because they decided to go out and party and then took a test and found out they were pregnant so they had a abotion.....Abotion should only be legal in very few cases......like for example if there is some deadly disease that might spread to the child and make his/her like horrible if they are even able to live, though there chances of dead are few great.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by DarkBlizzard+13 July 2003 - 04:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DarkBlizzard @ 13 July 2003 - 04:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@12 July 2003 - 22:42
I shall try again...

DB,
You keep using one scenario as an exemplar of why abortion should be illegal. Although I have no doubt that such things occur, I don&#39;t think that your instance of &#39;bad behaviour&#39; rises to the level of universiality necessary to make an informed decision. In other words, it may happen, but not often enough to overshadow the occasions where irresponsibilty/wantoness played no part .

Also, I believe that Africa is the area most severely tested by AIDS and I fail to see how banning abortion would help there. Cultural/religious/education issues are more to blame than "mates walking down street" looking for an easy shag.
Im not saying anything about Africa...my opinions are about my country....the United States....and i do know alot of girls that have had abotions because they decided to go out and party and then took a test and found out they were pregnant so they had a abotion.....Abotion should only be legal in very few cases......like for example if there is some deadly disease that might spread to the child and make his/her like horrible if they are even able to live, though there chances of dead are few great. [/b][/quote]
DB,

Are you 12 or what? The word is "Abortion", and requires an "r".


You not only cannot spell or understand grammar, but you fail to grasp that the relationship between abortion and AIDS is zero.

A deadly disease that will spread to the child, will kill the child. Why do you need to abort this one?

Please, for the love of God, go back to the Lounge.

[awfullwaffle919]

A fetus is a baby. A baby is a baby. Killing a baby is wrong, not just religiously *************. Killing a baby outside, or killing a baby inside before being "born" is still killing a baby. And thats why aborting should be illegal.






Personal comments are neither appropriate or acceptable in this topic especially.
Keep your views to the topic without becoming insulting please.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by awfullwaffle919@13 July 2003 - 05:18
A fetus is a baby. A baby is a baby. Killing a baby is wrong, not just religiously *************. Killing a baby outside, or killing a baby inside before being "born" is still killing a baby. And thats why aborting should be illegal.






Personal comments are neither appropriate or acceptable in this topic especially.
Keep your views to the topic without becoming insulting please.
If you are referring to me, you might take the time to read the entire thread, not the latest response.

I have posted my perspective, defended it, and I, at least, understand what I am talking about.

I also agree with Db that abortion is a bad decision, but his inability to articulate a fluid and logical response makes his post irrelevant.


Funny, how waffles&#39; and db&#39;s posts disappeared. Duh&#33;

[DarkBlizzard]

Originally posted by hobbes+12 July 2003 - 23:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 12 July 2003 - 23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-awfullwaffle919@13 July 2003 - 05:18
A fetus is a baby. A baby is a baby. Killing a baby is wrong, not just religiously *************. Killing a baby outside, or killing a baby inside before being "born" is still killing a baby. And thats why aborting should be illegal.






Personal comments are neither appropriate or acceptable in this topic especially.
Keep your views to the topic without becoming insulting please.
If you are referring to me, you might take the time to read the entire thread, not the latest response.

I have posted my perspective, defended it, and I, at least, understand what I am talking about.

I also agree with Db that abortion is a bad decision, but his inability to articulate a fluid and logical response makes his post irrelevant.


Funny, how waffles&#39; and db&#39;s posts disappeared. Duh&#33; [/b][/quote]
ah dang...your right...it did get deleted....oh well...this topic isnt very important to me anyway. To bad my opinion is gone :( ....

[Biggles]

Please try again, IC. [/color][/b] [/QUOTE]

[b][color=blue]As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.

I think that may be one of the finest examples of a closed argument I have seen in a long time. :)

As I understand it, moral philsophy may be connected to religion but it is not bound to it. Confucius and Socrates paid scant regards to the religious niceties of the day preferring to focus on man&#39;s responsibilities in contributing to a well ordered society.

Religion is, however, inextricibily linked to faith in the unseen. Whilst I don&#39;t agree with this position I accept that it a real and valid part of many peoples lives. Those that wish to live within whichever creed, accept the dogma of that faith and live their lives accordingly. I consequently accept that abortion for a Catholic girl goes against her creed (unless authorised by the Pope, as in that nasty chemical accident in Italy a few years ago)

However, it is not the place of those with religious convictions to bind those who do not share their beliefs with laws and regulations contrived on a priori assumptions they do not accept. Which is why a theocracy in imho is always a bad thing.

With regards abortion itself, I am put in mind of one of the last things my grandmother said to me, following an operation that did not go as planned, "whatever you do, try and stay away from doctors". The idea that intrusive surgery should be a first recall for anything is, to me, bizarre.

After seven years of marriage my wife and I decided we were ready to face rugrats. Within a couple of years we had two of the little blighters - as far as I can see condoms do the business. Kids at school these days not only learn about sexual health but also what a condom is and how to use one. The religious argument would be perhaps more convincing if it was not so anti-contraception.

The whole issue is emotive and there seems to me too much emphasis in trying to bounce people who are going through a crisis in their lives into one approach or another. The messages that come out through politicians, churchmen, and the media are mixed to say the least. On one hand abortion is pilloried, on the other, single mothers are in the stocks for being a drain on society. There is no consistency of message and the pregnant girl is damned (if I may use the secular version) no matter what she does. In this the Church has been particularly culpable. The treatment of unmarried mothers was, until recent years, despicable. - an extreme example being the Magdellan Laundries in Ireland. It was little wonder that back street abortion clinics flourished as the risk of injury was far outweighed by the social stigma otherwise facing them.

In summary, I am pro-choice. But I believe that choice should be made without pressure, based on all the options available. If the girl or women decides she wants to have the baby then she should receive whatever support is necessary rather than be decried from the modern day pulpit (tabloid editorials) as a sponge on society. I also believe that contraception should be freely available to all that require it and that the ultimate aim should be that abortion is used only for those who for medical reasons are faced with difficult choices. As my Gran said "stay away from doctors" if you can help it. B)

PS Apologies to the medical profession I know they do a sterling job in difficult circumstances.

[junkyardking]

DB you think that if you make abortions illegal that would stop people doing it? :huh:

Many things are illegal including murder but people and governments do it when it suits them.

Although you may find people to debate this, many of the files we share are illegal as in copyright infringement of music, movies and books of course, there by we are doing somthing illegal but we still do it.

How you link abortion to Aids is beyond me, Contracting Aids comes from having unprotected sex with multiple partners(which doesnt mean pregnacy) and also from
injecting drug users sharing needles, there are less likly ways like blood transfusions and the like.

Abortion is a tricky question, i am pro choice and in Australia it&#39;s legal, but i do have reservations when it&#39;s abused or used as a quick fix for people like so much in the world is and those reservations dont come from religion as i am an athesist, But they are moral ones. :mellow:

[Rat Faced]

The fact is Abortion happens and girls get pregnant even when people have used contraception.

Saying "dont do it" is fine of course and then no one would get pregnant, that however is forcing YOUR morals onto everyone else, and however lofty...that aint ever gonna happen.

[Biggles]

That is indeed so, although the efficiency or otherwise of contraceptives does tend to be directly proportional the number of bottles of newkie brown sunk.

:D Until of course the requisite number is reached where little more than lying face down in the gutter can be safely negotiated.

I think the argument is that, by and large, contraceptives are pretty effective and should be the first port of call. They are also play a vital part in maintaining sexual health. There will always be occurences when despite all precautions a pregnancy occurs. Of these, a great many are elected to be carried particularly within a stable relationship.

Consequently, I remain pro-choice, but with a huge boost towards sensible safeguards.

[Ad]

I would say if the woman doesnt want to have the baby it is her right to do what she feels is the right thing to do we shouldnt be placed on this earth with a set of rules how to run our life ading a child to the life is a huge factor that has to be delt with

[j2k4]

Please try again, IC. [/color][/b]

[b][color=blue]As morality is rooted in religion (no matter what anybody says to the contrary), I can use the principle of "Separation of Church and State" to zap this whole paragraph.

I think that may be one of the finest examples of a closed argument I have seen in a long time. :)

[/QUOTE]
Merely demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

It does seem an awkward fit to see the left&#39;s favorite shoe jammed onto the "right" foot.

If you could read a few of the earlier pages of this thread? Actually I have already tried to point out the efficacy of debating this issue from all points other than religion, as to introduce same renders debate somewhat opaque.

Sorry for giving an unintended impression.

BTW-thought your post was well done and to the point.

[Infested Cats]

In answering the question, Is there a right to life in law or in biblical faith? we must distinguish between a virtue and a right. If I am walking along the bank of a river and someone who cannot swim falls or jumps in, it could be argued that I ought also to jump in to rescue the drowning person, even if my own life is thereby endangered. But the person who jumps or falls in cannot claim that I must jump in because that person has a right to life. The mere fact that rescuing another would be a virtuous choice does not give that other person a right to decide my actions.


The common-law rule is that we have no duty to save the life of another person unless we voluntarily undertake such an obligation, as a lifeguard does in contracting to save lives at a beach or swimming pool. Neither is there a biblical mandate that each of us is morally required to risk our lives to save the life of another. Jesus considered it highly exceptional and evidence of great love if "a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).


No one who has not willingly contracted to do so is legally or morally required to give his or her life, or to make large sacrifices of health or money, to save the life of another person. Even an identical twin is not legally required to donate a kidney or blood to save a sibling&#39;s life. The virtue of the Good Samaritan lay precisely in his doing something he was not obligated to do.


No woman should be required to give up her life, her health, or her family&#39;s security to save the life of a fetus that is threatening her well-being. At the very least she is entitled to self-defense. On the other hand, many women are willing to sacrifice their health and their future in order to have one or more children. The religious community that respects the freedom of women to make such a choice must respect equally their freedom to choose not to bear a child.


Laws cannot eliminate abortions. In Romania under Ceausescu, the Communist secret Police checked monthly on all female workers under the age of 45 and monitored pregnant women; yet Romania outranked virtually all other European nations in rates of abortion and abortion-related female deaths. In Brazil, where abortion is illegal, there are twice as many abortions as in the United States, although Brazil&#39;s population is only half that of the United States. In Latin America, illegal abortion is the number-one killer of women between the ages of 15 and 39. By contrast, in countries where abortion is legal, it is a medically safe procedure--11 times safer than childbirth.

[ilw]

As u say its not illegal to not help someone, however, it is illegal to kill someone. Either directly as in murder or slightly more indirectly by the removal of life support. Basically once the foetus has been granted human rights then it is illegal to have an abortion as it would be murder. (unless carrying the baby to term would kill the mother)

[MagicNakor]

As far as I&#39;m aware, no fetus has been granted human rights, likely because, as IC&#39;s already stated, it&#39;s not particularly human. That would be why this debate continues.

:ninja:

[Biggles]

j2k4


Sorry I mis-read your piece. I did start to read the whole thread , but started to get rather depressed - a bit lame I know. Although I don&#39;t agree with all your points I enjoy your contributions a lot. I have been impressed by how dignified most of the debate has been.

As I said, I am pro-choice, however, I have some sympathy with those who worry about over use of abortion as a means of family planning. Although I concede my concerns are more for the psychological well being of the woman rather than any religious beliefs I may have over the status of an unborn fetus.

To be honest, if I were a women I would want the right to make my own decisions and not for matters concerning my own body to be decided by some court. I don&#39;t believe many women go for an abortion with a song in their heart and have simply chosen the least worst option for them.

One can try to reduce abortion rates by standing outside a hospital and heckling (or kill in extreme cases) those involved in order to make abortion a worse option or one can try to make motherhood a more attractive option. The EU has chosen the latter and women now have strong legal employment protection, housing rights etc., Inevitably, this has caused a reaction amongst those who dislike to see business fettered in anyway. It would be ironic if it were not so sad, but these sources of discontent tend to be the same organs that give most prominence to the anti-abortion position.

As I get older it seems to me that little is coherent or thought through in the world of politics (using the term in its broadest sense). I have never really placed myself on the political map - being on the left on some issues and on the right on others. I guess I am a Utilitarian but sadly that is rather unfashionable these days. Bring back J. S. Mills&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:

As a total aside, someone mentioned recovered memories earlier in the thread. Has anyone noticed that there are three distinct groups who use recovered memories 1) Alien abductees 2) Childhood abuse 3) Past lives. Invariably after hypnosis these groups are almost always successful in recovering the appropriate memory to their cause. How then can one be sure one wasn&#39;t abused by an alien in a previous life? Just a thought.

I am going on holiday for two weeks to sea, sun and sand will look in on my return.

I only loaded Kazaa so my daughter could download a tune or two - no idea it would be so interesting for an oldie too. B)

[ilw]

Sorry yeah u&#39;re right, I thought the legal basis for disallowing abortions after 24weeks was because the foetus was accepted as having rights at that point, but i&#39;ve just found out thats wrong (at least UK law) .

[ilw]

I just saw this in a bbc article, its from a report on Nelson Mandelas comments in Paris about aids.


But there was better news from Brazil where an aggressive safe sex campaign appears to have paid off.

Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso rounded on the US for basing its Aids prevention programmes on sexual abstinence rather than condom use.

He urged the global community to learn from Brazil&#39;s example of setting up education campaigns, expanding basic health care and providing anti-retroviral drugs to all infected people.

Brazil has cut the death rate from Aids by 50% and hospitalisations by 75%, he told the conference.

"The Brazilian experience confirms that ambiguous and inconsistent messages like those [which] advocate abstinence and fidelity as solutions run the risk of generating a misleading sense of security," he said.


just thought it was relevant to the discussion a few pages back

[clocker]

If those figures from Brazil are accurate, it goes to prove that "Just say know" trumps "Just say no" every time, eh?

[Rat Faced]

I have went through and deleted a couple of posts and edited others (as little as possible, and i hope I have not changed the context of posts).

This is due to a PM pointing out that i would, prior to the thread re-opening.

My appologise to any posters affected.....I think i got the worst and most "offensive" to the people concerned.

[junkyardking]

This is not ment to be judgemental and does&#39;nt necessary represent my views,
but has anyone asked the question,

What if i was aborted how would i feel about it?

Now i know the question is a bit abstract, but with all the life experience you&#39;ve had, how would you feel if someone would have taken that chance to experience it away from you?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by junkyardking@15 July 2003 - 00:02
This is not ment to be judgemental and does&#39;nt necessary represent my views,
but has anyone asked the question,

What if i was aborted how would i feel about it?

Now i know the question is a bit abstract, but with all the life experience you&#39;ve had, how would you feel if someone would have taken that chance to experience it away from you?
An insightful and relevant question, junkyardking.

I&#39;ll start by saying I&#39;m positive I would have been averse to the idea of being aborted; although by saying so I realize I&#39;ve laid myself open to being accused of being a mere piece of primordial goo incapable of forming and having that opinion, which indicates my lack of understanding of the "when does life begin" question and serves to indicate my insensitivity to the dilemma of a woman in crisis, which woman can&#39;t be bothered (nor should she be) to concern herself over any question of greater import than "What about MY life? I didn&#39;t mean to get pregnant-or, if I did, I don&#39;t want a baby if I can&#39;t twist this guy&#39;s arm hard enough to make him marry me-I mean, Gee Whiz&#33;"

Sorry, my imagination took over for a sec.....no wait-I don&#39;t have an imagination, I&#39;m just......goo?

[ilw]

This is getting a bit deep and spiritual, if u were aborted u wouldn&#39;t feel anything about it, u wouldn&#39;t ever experience anything, quite simply u would never have been. Ur applying a soul to a collection of cells.


Last Sentence edited by RF

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@15 July 2003 - 02:59
a collection of cells.
:blink: :blink: :huh: :(

[ilw]

sorry, u&#39;re right that is a bit harsh. I just meant it was a very simple cluster of cells. (along the lines of the goo u mentioned)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@15 July 2003 - 07:05
sorry, u&#39;re right that is a bit harsh. I just meant it was a very simple cluster of cells. (along the lines of the goo u mentioned)
That&#39;s better.

All in aid of a good debate. ;)