Your statistics would be relevant if we were talking about abortion in the mid 90's we aren't and therefore your statistics are irrelevant. This is a simple concept and something I have stated over and over again I am not sure why it is so difficult for you to comprehend?

You are the one who defined abortion as murder. Another situation was stated in which refusing to sustain another human life by donating tissue/organs (this other life is a fully formed and functional human life btw) isn't considered murder.
Your response is that this can't even be considered but it could be if several irrelevant (to the act of murder which is what you define abortion as btw) conditions are satisfied. They are:

Quote :

"responsible for your condition AND existence"

1) Murder doesn't require that the Murderer to be responsible for the existence of the Murderee therefore your objection on this account is idiotic.



2) The mother simply makes a decision (much like the decision to withhold organs is made in the hypothetical situation) these decisions lead to the death of a "human life". In other words both parties are making a decision which leads to the "condition"(death/abortion).

Pretty fucking simple.

Your inability to comprehend such basic information is incredibly frustrating btw.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM. Reason : fucking smiley faces...]

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM. Reason : wow]

5/13/2011 9:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Your statistics would be relevant if we were talking about abortion in the mid 90's we aren't and therefore your statistics are irrelevant. "

so then come up with your own statistics to support your own claim. I see no reason not to trust these stats, and I especially see no reason not to trust the word of the late Dr. Tiller. Keep trying to explain why a duck doesn't quack, though.

Quote :

"Another situation was stated in which refusing to sustain another human life by donating tissue/organs (this other life is a fully formed and functional human life btw) isn't considered murder. "

And it was an absurd fucking situation with no OTHER RELATIONSHIP TO THE ORIGINAL POINT. ergo, it's fucking stupid and doesn't deserve to be discussed. the discussion of responsibility is only to show how fucking stupid the analogy is, not to address any question of murder. a stupid analogy is stupid at the point it is fucking proven stupid. It has been proven stupid. SO IT IS FUCKING STUPID.

Quote :

"Your inability to comprehend such basic information is incredibly frustrating btw."

No, your inability to comprehend how fucked up of an analogy is frustrating. Come up with one that is even remotely comparable.

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2011 9:46:36 PM

Quote :

"In other words:THE FETUS CANNOT SURVIVE OUTSIDE OF THE MOTHERS BODY. AN INFANT CAN (AND OFTEN DOES) SURVIVE WITHOUT IT'S BIRTH MOTHER... This is an incredibly simple concept."

Only because there is someone capable and willing to support the child in the mother's stead. If no one were willing or capable, she would still be responsible for the child. As I said, unfortunately we are not at the point of allowing for fetal transplants.

Quote :

"Murder doesn't require that the Murderer to be responsible for the existence of the Murderee therefore your objection on this account is idiotic. "

But something that isn't normally murder can become murder if you have taken actions to take responsibility for the health, wellbeing or life of someone else. For example if we go rock climbing, and I'm holding your safety line, and then decide to go do something else while you're climbing and you fall to your death, I'm liable.

Quote :

"In other words both parties are making a decision which leads to the "condition"(death/abortion). "

In one instance however, the party making the decision is responsible for the decision needing to be made in the first place, and is in fact directly responsible for the person who will die. In the other instance, it's just two random strangers.

"Your inability to comprehend such basic information is incredibly frustrating btw."

Incidentally, how do you feel about laws which charge a mother with child abuse / endangerment for smoking / drinking / doing drugs while pregnant?

[Edited on May 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/13/2011 10:11:06 PM

Quote :

"Incidentally, how do you feel about laws which charge a mother with child abuse / endangerment for smoking / drinking / doing drugs while pregnant?"

In all honesty she shouldn't be allowed to have a child (child adopted or aborted I personally am in favor of abortion in all but the later stages of pregnancy however that is my personal preference due to the disgusting nature of our population problem).

Quote :

"I see no reason not to trust these stats, and I especially see no reason not to trust the word of the late Dr. Tiller."

You see no reason why you shouldn't use 15+ year old stats to prove a point about something that has changed drastically in 15 years (the OTC availability of emergency contraception is just one example)? Really? Seriously? If you can't figure that out there is simply no hope for you.

5/13/2011 10:38:10 PM

Quote :

"In all honesty she shouldn't be allowed to have a child"

Not to play gotcha or anything, but why does the mother no longer have the right to do what she will with her body in this case? I'm seriously not trying to trap you or anything, I'm trying to find where your boundaries lie, because clearly they don't match with mine. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

5/13/2011 10:56:04 PM

Quote :

"why does the mother no longer have the right to do what she will with her body"

God, I hate this argument. Nobody gives a shit what the mother does to her own body. The issue is what she's doing to someone else's. The only relevant question is whether or not an embryo/fetus/what have you counts as its own individual.

5/14/2011 12:18:19 AM

^ I know that. Which is my point. Per adder's argument (as I understand it), the mother owns everything in her body, so an abortion is her exercising control over her body. So I asked him how he felt about laws which charge a mother with crimes for drinking / doing drugs while pregnant. He indicated he was generally favorable to the concept, if not the law itself. I am trying to figure out what difference he sees which changes the issue in this case to not being only about the mother's body.

5/14/2011 12:33:05 AM

There are actually quite a few good points on both sides. One thing that doesn't make much sense, however, is how a lot of the pro-abortion people claim that since a fetus/zygote doesn't have consciousness, then it therefore has no rights. Take, for instance, a dead person. It's illegal to have sex with a dead person or dig them up. You cannot utilize their perfectly good organs without their living permission. A dead person truly is a useless clump of cells (a description that is often used for an unborn baby) yet they have many rights. So to try to rationalize the premature destruction of a fetus simply because it may or may not know that it is alive just doesn't make sense. In fact, I would think that an unconscious clump of cells that will someday be conscious should have significantly more rights than an unconscious clump of cells that will soon decompose into the earth.

Also, just as a side question, for those of you who are pro-abortion, how many of you have children?

5/14/2011 1:39:11 AM

ITT people suggest that fetuses are autonomous lives completely separate from the body of their mothers.

I have 2 children.

Oh and I so love Duke's high moral ground here. Blowing up "bad guys" and innocent people that happen to be near "bad guys" is ok, but preventing unwanted children from suffering and causing unneeded strain on their families and society at large is so terrible that he "can't find words"...

Quote :

""Because the woman surrendered that right when she chose the actions that brought her child to life.""

Arbitrarily decided by you. Huzzah! Brofists all around!

--------------------------------------------------------------
And since anecdotes are apparently worth more than nothing, here's one for you from FARK.com:

Quote :

"No. fark this shiat. I'm done being diplomatic and apologetic. Abortion needs to be available and affordable to anyone who wants one. Certainly there needs to be better education on birth control (that is also freely available), but shiat happens, that fails, etc. No more forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want. No more forcing her out of her job and onto the street because the same people wanting to ban abortion refuse to support things like affordable daycare and paid maternity leave. And don't pull the "she knew the risks" bullshiat either. So did the guy, but HE can just walk away and leave the woman alone with the baby. Abortion is one of the few things that helps to keep women on any equal footing with men in this world. Without it and birth control we have little control over our lives. And whoever claims to be pro-life but insists that carrying and raising the baby is a "fitting punishment"- fark off. You're not pro-life. You don't care if that kid gets abused or killed, just about being "right". Children are a GIFT, and every one should be wanted, welcomed and loved. I've had two abortions, one at a PP, one I induced myself, and I do not regret them. The first child would have put me and the father out on the street with no food, not to mention the father would have molested them (I turned him in for CP after I finally left him when I got sick of his abuse). The next one, I was barely out of a homeless shelter when it happened. Now I have a daughter, but I'm in a much better position to raise her well and provide her with everything she needs. So fark you if you support reducing women to walking baby machines and allowing children to grow up in abject poverty and abuse. I don't care your political or religious affiliation- I'd rather see a woman get several abortions than have the kid because she was pressured and then see them treated like shiat. It's no one's business but the womans', and the father if he is still around and involved."

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 1:50 AM. Reason : quote]

5/14/2011 1:39:48 AM

Quote :

"ITT people suggest that fetuses are autonomous lives completely separate from the body of their mothers."

I don't think this idea is beyond considering. The entity is pretty much unchanged from the period 24 hours before it is born to 24 hours after it is born, minus a placenta. To me, the question of whether or not it's been squeezed out of a vagina seems like an inadequate distinction between whether a thing is an individual or not. And "autonomous" is not helpful, either. In any meaningful sense, a child isn't "autonomous" for several years of its life.

5/14/2011 1:49:01 AM

Quote :

"In any meaningful sense, a child isn't "autonomous" for several years of its life."

In the sense that it isn't physically contingent upon it's mothers body. Bingo bango, a meaningful sense of the word "autonomous".

5/14/2011 1:51:08 AM

It is, of course, reliant on someone else to provide it with the most basic necessities of life. A fetus can be taken out of its mother well before it is supposed to be born, and subsequently cared for by someone other than it's mother. I wouldn't call it "autonomous."

5/14/2011 2:17:20 AM

Just saw an HBO special on the Chinese one child policy. I didn't know they had problems with human trafficking, female fetus abortion and kidnapping. The said that since the policy was enacted six million female fetuses were aborted. They also said 70000 children are abducted every year. Sad state of things over there.

5/14/2011 2:29:27 AM

Quote :

"It is, of course, reliant on someone else to provide it with the most basic necessities of life. A fetus can be taken out of its mother well before it is supposed to be born, and subsequently cared for by someone other than it's mother. I wouldn't call it "autonomous.""

The only people I see bringing up late term abortions are pro-lifers... Many pro-choice people have not shown any support for late term abortions unless there is a risk to the mother's health by giving birth.

But I understand that you guys want to build your strawmen and make an emotional argument against something that nobody has shown support of.

5/14/2011 3:27:41 AM

Slow your roll there, merbig. I'm not necessarily opposed to abortions at any stage, and I'm still ambivalent on the whole subject.

But I think it's necessary to answer the question of when, exactly, a fetus becomes its own entity and not just an extension of the mother. Because that's what it boils down to. I don't think any significant portion of the population is out there saying, "Fuck a woman's right to her own body, let's restrict that!" No. The whole issue centers around the presumption (or lack thereof) of life for the unborn.

So we start with the obvious point of distinction: birth. As I've said, not a lot of difference in the thing in the 48 hours preceding birth and afterwords. You seem to tacitly agree with that assessment. So, if there's no big difference there, where do we draw the line? That's the only question that matters. And when I see a convincing answer to that, I'll reach a conclusion.

I can see how my line of questioning comes off as pro-life. I really, truly don't intend it that way. I can see the benefits to society that come from not having unwanted children. But I can also see the benefits of not having the infirm, retarded, etc. Which is why -- and I reiterate, for the thousandth time, this point -- the only question is whether or not the unborn is its own person. I don't know. I'm willing to hear arguments either way. If it isn't a person, well, shit, vacuum the thing out and I have no problem. If it is a person, things get a lot more complicated.

5/14/2011 4:56:37 AM

Quote :

"Not to play gotcha or anything, but why does the mother no longer have the right to do what she will with her body in this case? I'm seriously not trying to trap you or anything, I'm trying to find where your boundaries lie, because clearly they don't match with mine. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from."

Because ultimately the fetus is going to be alive/human. IF she intended to abort the fetus then fuck no she shouldn't be prosecuted (obviously). This is akin to trying to play gotcha with the laws that charge people for harming a fetus inside a womb (aka you shoot a mother and the fetus aborts).

Quote :

"One thing that doesn't make much sense, however, is how a lot of the pro-abortion people claim that since a fetus/zygote doesn't have consciousness, then it therefore has no rights. Take, for instance, a dead person. It's illegal to have sex with a dead person or dig them up. You cannot utilize their perfectly good organs without their living permission. A dead person truly is a useless clump of cells (a description that is often used for an unborn baby) yet they have many rights."

Respect for corpses is yet again trumped up religious bullshit invading law. Once I am dead you can do whatever you want with my corpse because I AM DEAD IT IS A USELESS CLUMP OF DYING CELLS. That being said necrophilia is a different subject. You also can't have sex with animals and it damn well isn't because of animal rights. Necrophilia and bestiality are indicative of deeper psychological problems and that is most likely why those are frowned upon/ prosecuted.

Quote :

"Also, just as a side question, for those of you who are pro-abortion, how many of you have children? "

I don't have any. However a more relevant question would be what is your faith.

5/14/2011 8:27:53 AM

I personally don't think you can draw a line anywhere and that it will be different for every case...

But to answer some previous questions, I do not have children but I do work in the medical field (or at least am being trained in the moment) and a large concentration of my work will be in prenatal. So, yeah, I'll have the job of telling many women their baby will either die soon after birth or have a medical condition its whole life (I.e., Down syndrome). However, in college I did have a scare once. The gynecologist told me my pregnancy test was positive when I went in for a routine check-up. Turns out the lab tech knocked over an 8-month-pregnant woman's sample into mine But, I wasn't told this immediately and they asked me to take another one and call them with the results. Even though it was negative, by the time I took the test I had already decided I would step up and accept my new responsibilities. I'm also Christian.

I have always found these arguments to be frustrating for one main reason: it's NOT a black and white issue, and you can't ignore the gray areas..

5/14/2011 8:48:54 AM

Quote :

"I don't have any. However a more relevant question would be what is your faith."

I don't really know. Probably agnostic, although I really feel like the world was created by some design... so perhaps Intelligent Design? Not hardcore Christian, if that's what you're asking.

I only asked the parent thing as a point of reference for myself. I was fairly benign to the whole abortion issue prior to having my little girl. After seeing her born it is very difficult to support any abortion that is not designed to protect the mother's health or for some other compelling issue (rape, mental retardation, medical problems, etc).

Is it a fairly safe assertion that most people (including the user base in this thread) are OK with abortions if the mother's life is at risk or if the pregnancy is one of the "compelling examples" I listed above? And also that most people are against third trimester abortions? So basically, this discussion is really about whether a normal, healthy 1st or 2nd trimester fetus can be ethically aborted? To me, that's the main issue. Like GrumpyGOP I am open to debate on this one. and I really think it boils down to the question of when the clump of cells becomes human.

5/14/2011 9:08:00 AM

^ I agree that is the main issue up for debate. I have to go to work but I will respond later.

5/14/2011 9:20:02 AM

Quote :

"Many pro-choice people have not shown any support for late term abortions unless there is a risk to the mother's health by giving birth."

Which then suggests that even for "pro-choice" people there is a point at some time before the child is actually born where it becomes unethical/immoral/wrong to terminate the pregnancy except in extreme cases, which implies that the unborn child has a right to life at that point even though its still physically attached to the mother.

The question at hand is where and why that line is.

Quote :

"Because ultimately the fetus is going to be alive/human. IF she intended to abort the fetus then fuck no she shouldn't be prosecuted (obviously). This is akin to trying to play gotcha with the laws that charge people for harming a fetus inside a womb (aka you shoot a mother and the fetus aborts). "

So to your mind, the unborn child has a right to life only so long as the mother intends to give birth? If it is all about the mother's intent, why then is a late term abortion, or even a post birth abortion wrong?

Quote :

"I have always found these arguments to be frustrating for one main reason: it's NOT a black and white issue, and you can't ignore the gray areas.."

Very much so. The question is, when making a law, how much on the side of caution do you err?

5/14/2011 9:31:48 AM

Let's say that somehow a grown adult person was miniaturized and implanted within a woman. If the woman wanted the man out of her but the only way to get it out would result in the death of the man, would she or would she not have the right?

Not that fetuses should be given the same rights as adults (and I don't think that anyone is arguing it). Just trying to figure out where the line is why a woman wouldn't have the right to get a foreign body out of her own.

5/14/2011 1:35:20 PM

That's an interesting question, but it lacks the key point that (in your example) she had absolutely no choice in the fact that the miniature person got implanted.

Of course I realize there are outliers (rape, failed BC), but for the most part, if a woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want to, she usually has a reasonable say-so in the matter. Either she missed a couple of pills, or she was taking medication that negated the effectiveness of the pill, or she didn't use BC at all, or (insert reason).

So assuming that said woman chose to have sexual intercourse, and as a result, a person (let's say you disco_stu were then miniaturized and placed inside of her, I do not believe that it should be within her rights to kill you to assure her safety.

I am not totally versed on birth control and contraception, however I know there are some pretty effective methods of birth control. The pill, a shot, an implant, tubal litigation, a condom.... these methods used in conjunction with each other - they may not be 100%, but I am pretty sure that you can get pretty close to 100%. So it is pretty safe to say that if indeed you're truly practicing safe sex, you're not going to get pregnant - despite that one friend of a friend we all know who used a condom and the pill and still got knocked up. And using that rationale, I don't think it is right for a woman to kill miniature disco_stu.

5/14/2011 2:02:54 PM

Quote :

"So, if there's no big difference there, where do we draw the line?"

And that's the very same question I've asked as well to aaronburro, who is staunchly against abortion.

I attitude is if the mother knows she's pregnant, then it is "murder." But with pregnancy tests capable of telling a woman if she is pregnant a week or so after conception, that hardly seems like a valid measurement. Abortion itself is basically a reactionary procedure. So that measurement right there would rule out most abortions, even though the abortion may take place 2 or so weeks after conception, when the fetus looks nothing like a human and hasn't even come close to reaching a point of being capable of autonomy.

While legally the hard line is birth, but to me, if a fetus has developed to the point that it is realistically possible for it to survive outside of the womb, then a fetus should not be allowed to be aborted. But to me, it just sets the metric further back in the development process, and it just narrows down the grey area.

5/14/2011 2:23:07 PM

Just an arbitrary line here but I want to see what other people think of it. How about drawing the line at the point where the baby could survive outside of the mothers womb? The info I saw during a quick perusal of March of Dimes website seem to indicate that pre 26 weeks things aren't looking good. Even after 26 weeks you are looking at a fetus needing extreme care (intravenous feeding, oxygen etc) and can face problems as a result of this premature birth.
So basically as a starting point no aborting a fetus after 26 weeks unless there are serious medical reasons or other extreme factors.

5/14/2011 4:20:42 PM

That line will continually shift with medical progress.

Plus, it seems to me to be an awfully poor indication of human life.

5/14/2011 4:49:29 PM

Quote :

"Very much so. The question is, when making a law, how much on the side of caution do you err?"

I honestly don't know. I know at some point you need to draw a line, but at the same time there will always be extreme cases where a life-threatening condition for the mother develops late, you find something terrible out way late, OR something develops late (meaning it wasn't there in the first and second trimester, then in the third trimester you have X problem come about).

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM. Reason : Thought it said 36 not 26]

5/14/2011 5:11:17 PM

Quote :

"You see no reason why you shouldn't use 15+ year old stats to prove a point about something that has changed drastically in 15 years"

given that there has been no proof that anything regarding those statistics has changed in 15 years, no. As I said before, offer your own stats.

Quote :

"but preventing unwanted children from suffering and causing unneeded strain on their families"

I know. how dare a kid inconvenience someone else.

Quote :

"ITT people suggest that fetuses are autonomous lives completely separate from the body of their mothers."

strawman. No one has suggested there is no ongoing connection. People are, however, suggesting that a fetus is not simply a body part of the mother.

Quote :

"No more forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want."

can we give a man the same right?

Quote :

"In the sense that it isn't physically contingent upon it's mothers body. Bingo bango, a meaningful sense of the word "autonomous"."

So, in other words, when you redefine a word, then it fits a completely different definition. got it.

Quote :

"Because ultimately the fetus is going to be alive/human. IF she intended to abort the fetus then fuck no she shouldn't be prosecuted (obviously)."

Why does the desire of the woman matter, then? If the fetus is ultimately going to be alive, then shouldn't that mean it should be protected no matter what? Why does the whim of a different person matter?

Quote :

"I personally don't think you can draw a line anywhere and that it will be different for every case... "

Of course not, cause that would actually require you to take a stand on the murder of human beings.

Quote :

"But with pregnancy tests capable of telling a woman if she is pregnant a week or so after conception, that hardly seems like a valid measurement."

I don't see why. My concern is with killing a life you know to be there or possibly be there. If I don't know when life is officially started, then I will be conservative, assuming that is my concern. Ergo, it makes 100% sense to say "at the point you know you are pregnant, it's murder."

Quote :

"but at the same time there will always be extreme cases where a life-threatening condition for the mother develops late, you find something terrible out way late, OR something develops late (meaning it wasn't there in the first and second trimester, then in the third trimester you have X problem come about)."

And few people have an issue with an abortion in this case.

5/14/2011 5:35:08 PM

Quote :

"I don't see why. My concern is with killing a life you know to be there or possibly be there. If I don't know when life is officially started, then I will be conservative, assuming that is my concern. Ergo, it makes 100% sense to say "at the point you know you are pregnant, it's murder.""

Why does it matter if you know it's there or not? According to your rationale, you're still killing another human. It's just manslaughter instead of full on murder...

And what person is going to go to the doctor and have an abortion on the off chance that they're pregnant? Your reasoning would pretty much completely get rid of abortion and defeat its purpose of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. So no, it doesn't make 100% sense to say that if you're still going to allow abortions outside of life threatening circumstances.

And what about the case where a woman never gets a pregnancy test, but maybe by the 8th month she suspects that maybe she's pregnant and she goes to the doctor and tells him to inject a saline solution into where a womb would be? That would be performing a third trimester abortion, which would be legal according to you.

If you're of the opinion that there should be no abortions, then just come out and say it. Be consistent.

Obviously you're not willing to go out on such a limb, as it would give a mother no recourse if she gets pregnant if/when her birth control fails. You obviously think that there is a point where that "lump of cells" becomes what you call a "human." But you can't exactly nail that point, and neither can I. A better metric than we have now is to not allow abortions on fetuses that can survive outside of the womb, and yes, as our medical abilities improve, that point will continue to move, until we reach a point where it's literally not possible for the fetus to survive outside of the womb, or where you can't abort the child.

5/14/2011 5:48:31 PM

Quote :

"Why does it matter if you know it's there or not"

because that's the only way you can be judged by the law? If you don't know it's there, how the fuck can the law even know to prosecute you? exactly.

Quote :

"Your reasoning would pretty much completely get rid of abortion and defeat its purpose of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. "

wow. it took you until now to think that that's what I actually fucking want? jesus.

Quote :

"And what about the case where a woman never gets a pregnancy test, but maybe by the 8th month she suspects that maybe she's pregnant and she goes to the doctor and tells him to inject a saline solution into where a womb would be?"

Aside from the absolutely absurd analogy here, which you've been good at, I'd say the doctor would first have to rule other things out. No doctor should simply blindly do what the patient tells him to do. WOOPS!

Quote :

"Obviously you're not willing to go out on such a limb, as it would give a mother no recourse if she gets pregnant if/when her birth control fails. "

I don't think there should be any recourse. You did the deed, you knew what was possible. You accept the fucking responsibility that comes with that. That's simply how it is!

Quote :

"A better metric than we have now is to not allow abortions on fetuses that can survive outside of the womb"

Only if you don't care about the fact that you are possibly murdering something

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2011 5:54:09 PM

Quote :

"If you don't know it's there, how the fuck can the law even know to prosecute you? exactly."

Manslaughter... If they find out, that you killed something, even by accident, you're fucked.

Quote :

"wow. it took you until now to think that that's what I actually fucking want? jesus."

Being that it's almost impossible to get a straight answer from you and that you dodge questions, yes.

Quote :

"Aside from the absolutely absurd analogy here, which you've been good at, I'd say the doctor would first have to rule other things out. No doctor should simply blindly do what the patient tells him to do. WOOPS!"

That wasn't an analogy... I didn't compare two like things. I gave an example.

And no, the doctor wouldn't have to rule anything out. There are a lot of doctors out there who don't give a shit and who will do what the patient tells them to do. If a patient signs a waiver acknowledging that they know the risks in the procedure involved, then they don't have any more reason to not do the abortion than they do now.

Quote :

"You did the deed, you knew what was possible. You accept the fucking responsibility that comes with that. That's simply how it is!"

So, you're for pushing people into potential poverty, allowing children to be born into bad situations to parents who don't care or want the child. Then, we have cunts like you who then bitch about the same people whose options you have taken away to allow them to not get into that situation.

Yeah, accidents happen, and if you honestly think that abstinence is the feasible solution, you're not in your right mind. Just because you involuntarily practice it does not mean that others should follow suit when we have a perfectly viable plan B when plan A doesn't work.

Quote :

"Only if you don't care about the fact that you are possibly murdering something"

I'm going to eat chicken for dinner. It will be dead. It was murdered. Yet I don't see you petitioning farmers and the government to end the needless death of millions of cows, chickens, pigs, ducks, turkeys, ect, a year!

5/14/2011 7:03:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to eat chicken for dinner. It will be dead. It was murdered. Yet I don't see you petitioning farmers and the government to end the needless death of millions of cows, chickens, pigs, ducks, turkeys, ect, a year!"

And they damn sure are more sentient than a clump of cells in a woman's uterus... Oh wait burro is hung up on this imperceivable fantasy of a soul.

Quote :

" given that there has been no proof that anything regarding those statistics has changed in 15 years, no. As I said before, offer your own stats."

Plan B available OTC and consequently much more widespread use I feel like I already gave this example. OH WAIT I DID. Just because you keep repeating things doesn't make it true.

5/14/2011 7:21:15 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to eat chicken for dinner. It will be dead. It was murdered. Yet I don't see you petitioning farmers and the government to end the needless death of millions of cows, chickens, pigs, ducks, turkeys, ect, a year! "

and

Quote :

"And they damn sure are more sentient than a clump of cells in a woman's uterus... Oh wait burro is hung up on this imperceivable fantasy of a soul."

This is just weak. You also can't be charged with murder for killing an animal. Obviously in the modern world, we still place a human life in a different category from an animal. Now, if you'd like to argue that humans and animals are equal and deserving of the same protections (or lack thereof) then go ahead an argue that.

5/14/2011 7:32:37 PM

Your argument also hinges on the idea that a zygote is an individual human being although it is identical to the separate sperm and egg. This is really the heart of the debate, whether or not we should protect human life is a red herring.

5/14/2011 7:51:44 PM

Quote :

""You did the deed, you knew what was possible. You accept the fucking responsibility that comes with that. That's simply how it is!""

What if I see going through an abortion as accepting responsibility for your actions? Rightfully deciding that you cannot emotionally or financially support this child at this time, and postponing motherhood until you are stable enough not to be a drain on others and responsibly raise a child to be a product member of society. Seems really fucking responsible to me.

5/14/2011 8:15:23 PM

Quote :

"Plan B available OTC and consequently much more widespread use I feel like I already gave this example. OH WAIT I DID. Just because you keep repeating things doesn't make it true."

still waiting on those statistics from you...

Quote :

"Manslaughter... If they find out, that you killed something, even by accident, you're fucked."

are we now going to have roving pregnancy tests just to make sure no one has an abortion?

Quote :

"Being that it's almost impossible to get a straight answer from you and that you dodge questions, yes."

if you didn't know before now that I'm against abortion as a form of birth control, then you are truly clueless.

Quote :

"And no, the doctor wouldn't have to rule anything out."

actually, yes he would. aint no insurance company in the world going to pay for that, and the doctor doesn't work for free. so yes, he's gonna ask questions, because he's not a sick little fuck like you want him to be.

Quote :

"So, you're for pushing people into potential poverty, allowing children to be born into bad situations to parents who don't care or want the child."

if that is their fucking choice, then sure. holy crap, personal responsibility, what the hell is that?!!!

Quote :

"Then, we have cunts like you who then bitch about the same people whose options you have taken away to allow them to not get into that situation."

I wasn't aware that I was also taking away their ability to SHUT THEIR FUCKING LEGS.

Quote :

"Oh wait burro is hung up on this imperceivable fantasy of a soul."

ooooh, strawman, NICE!

Quote :

"This is really the heart of the debate, whether or not we should protect human life is a red herring."

not really. when we can't say when it begins or ends, then the discussion naturally turns to said protection and erring on the side of caution.

Quote :

"What if I see going through an abortion as accepting responsibility for your actions?"

let's see... ducking the consequences for your actions... responsibility? HAHAHAHAHA. good one!

Quote :

"Rightfully deciding that you cannot emotionally or financially support this child at this time, and postponing motherhood until you are stable enough not to be a drain on others and responsibly raise a child to be a product member of society. Seems really fucking responsible to me."

No, the responsible choice would be seeing this BEFORE you engage in behaviour likely to bring about a child and deciding "hey, maybe I shouldn't do this or maybe I should do things to decrease the likelihood of having a kid." Things that aren't exactly the mainstay of things done by people procuring abortions.

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2011 8:24:15 PM

Unfortunately, typing "SHUT THEIR FUCKING LEGS" in all caps invalidates your opinion on this matter.

And you were doing so good! Really.

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM. Reason : (Not really.) ]

5/14/2011 8:55:36 PM

Quote :

"This is just weak. You also can't be charged with murder for killing an animal. Obviously in the modern world, we still place a human life in a different category from an animal."

Given that the average non human mammal is more sentient than a human fetus I don't really see how you can claim that a fetus is a person/human and therefore granted rights while a clearly more sentient being is not. And this is coming from someone who regularly kills other non human mammals.

Quote :

"still waiting on those statistics from you..."

I am not trying to offer statistics I am simply explaining to you how yours are likely inaccurate and therefore inadmissible.
I have an idea lets use pre 1973 US abortion statistics. I guess abortion really is not an issue is it? Are you really this fucking stupid?

5/14/2011 8:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, typing "SHUT THEIR FUCKING LEGS" in all caps invalidates your opinion on this matter. "

how do you figure? It is a fact that 100% of pregnancies were caused by sexual intercourse. Except for the case of rape, all were willing participants. And it is a fact that 100% of those pregnancies could have been avoided by not having sexual intercourse. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex!

Quote :

"I am not trying to offer statistics I am simply explaining to you how yours are likely inaccurate and therefore inadmissible. "

Of course you don't have stats. And thus you don't have a point. I have also offered equally plausible ways that late term abortions are more elective now than before.

Quote :

"I have an idea lets use pre 1973 US abortion statistics. I guess abortion really is not an issue is it? Are you really this fucking stupid?"

If you can find stats that contradict mine, then be my guest. I've offered proof against the assertion that most late-term abortions are medically related. Feel free to support your own assertion, or the assertion that you are defending that someone else initially made. It's that whole "burden of proof" thing that you don't understand much about.

Quote :

"Given that the average non human mammal is more sentient than a human fetus I don't really see how you can claim that a fetus is a person/human and therefore granted rights while a clearly more sentient being is not."

because our laws are in regards to people and their rights. at the point that other animals get a vote in our elections, it will probably stay that way, too. wow, that was fucking hard.

5/14/2011 10:13:03 PM

Quote :

"because our laws are in regards to people and their rights. at the point that other animals get a vote in our elections, it will probably stay that way, too. wow, that was fucking hard."

Well if our laws are the end all be all of moral judgment, then why are you against abortion, considering how it is supported by law?

Oops, there it is!

5/14/2011 11:01:38 PM

I don't think I've seen anything less intelligent in quite a while. nowhere did I say that I use our laws as the end-all be-all about morality. Rather, someone asked why we were "granting rights" to fetuses instead of animals. It only makes sense to then respond with something regarding law. Rights and laws are kind of things that tend to be discussed in the same breath. That may be a shock to you

5/14/2011 11:07:40 PM

For those who want to argue about statistics...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

The website itself is a good source.

5/14/2011 11:57:03 PM

Quote :

"This is just weak. You also can't be charged with murder for killing an animal."

You also cant be charged with murder for having an abortion.

Look, he made the argument of:

Quote :

"Only if you don't care about the fact that you are possibly murdering something"

Thereby validating the argument.

Quote :

"if that is their fucking choice, then sure. holy crap, personal responsibility, what the hell is that?!!!"

An abortion is taking personal responsibility for their actions by ensuring that they don't bring a baby into a bad financial or personal situation until the time is right.

Quote :

"let's see... ducking the consequences for your actions... responsibility? HAHAHAHAHA. good one!"

Hardly. Just because you don't like the method of someone taking responsibility for their actions doesn't mean that they are ducking the consequences for their actions.

5/15/2011 2:28:22 AM

Quote :

"when we can't say when it begins or ends, then the discussion naturally turns to said protection and erring on the side of caution."

The whole "erring on the side of caution" is a stupid argument. Let me start using that one in my day-to-day, I'm not sure if I'm going to die in a car accident on the way to work today, well better err on the side of caution and skip out of work!
Not knowing the answer isn't an excuse for not making a decision or trying to figure it out.

Quote :

"No, the responsible choice would be seeing this BEFORE you engage in behaviour likely to bring about a child and deciding "hey, maybe I shouldn't do this or maybe I should do things to decrease the likelihood of having a kid.""

Hey, you believe in human nature, there's nothing more natural than sex.

5/15/2011 10:19:49 AM

Quote :

"An abortion is taking personal responsibility for their actions by ensuring that they don't bring a baby into a bad financial or personal situation until the time is right."

I think this is kind of a weak argument. I would compare it to all the idiots who bought a house well beyond their means with creative financing, and then when the housing bubble popped, they looked for an easy solution.... bankruptcy, short-sales, etc. Responsibility is when you own up to your actions and suffer the consequences - in my "example" it is the banks that are really the ones suffering, and with abortion, it's the unborn (maybe alive???) baby.

IMO, truly taking responsibility for your actions would be practicing effective birth control (once again I am not referring to the rape pregnancies or the highly unlikely case where multiple contraceptive devices fail). Once you get pregnant, abortion is just the easy way out, which (once again IMO) is the very antithesis of responsibility. I am also not a proponent of bringing kids into an unstable emotional or financial situation, however there are thousands of people who would love to adopt a newborn baby.

Quote :

"The whole "erring on the side of caution" is a stupid argument. Let me start using that one in my day-to-day, I'm not sure if I'm going to die in a car accident on the way to work today, well better err on the side of caution and skip out of work! Not knowing the answer isn't an excuse for not making a decision or trying to figure it out."

I think we all know this ridiculous, and that is not at all what he is suggesting. To me, he was saying, "Hey, most doctors agree that true life begins between 3-5 months in the womb, so thus, to err on the side of caution, we're going to set the latest time for a legal abortion at 3 months (vice the mean of 4 months)." Obviously these numbers are just made up, but I did so simply to illustrate a point - that there is a vast difference between erring on the side of caution and being utterly ridiculous.

5/15/2011 10:58:05 AM

If doctors agreed when "life began" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Additionally the context of the discussion was around any abortion.

5/15/2011 11:41:51 AM

Quote :

"I think this is kind of a weak argument. I would compare it to all the idiots who bought a house well beyond their means with creative financing, and then when the housing bubble popped, they looked for an easy solution.... bankruptcy, short-sales, etc. Responsibility is when you own up to your actions and suffer the consequences - in my "example" it is the banks that are really the ones suffering, and with abortion, it's the unborn (maybe alive???) baby."

Comparing the idiots who buy a house beyond their means to a couple having unprotected sex/breaking a condom is hardly valid.

First of all, filing for bankruptcy is being responsible for your actions. You fuck up your credit, potentially lose your possessions, your house, ect. It is the definition of owning up and suffering the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately this mass stampede of people owning up and suffering for their actions caused the rest of us to suffer...

Second of all, saying the mother and father should suffer the consequences of their actions is foolish when there is an alternative. Look, if them fucking up only affected them, I would agree with you. But bringing a child into a bad economic situation is, in my opinion, irresponsible. It's not just the parents suffering for their parent's mistake, but also the child. How often do you see teenage mothers drop out of HS and work at BK/McDonalds/ect? This perceived "moral" high ground leaves two people fucked. And at what benefit to anyone? I personally feel that it is immoral to bring a child into a bad situation.

Not to mention the growing population of Earth. Eventually we will have to do something, and this unrestrained baby making is going to fuck all of us over. I know it's a realization that most people prefer to ignore, but trying to do something at the "last second" will do nothing to help anyone.

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2011 1:56:59 PM

Should just have the child adopted. Everyone wins!

5/15/2011 2:10:04 PM

Let's worry about babies, while 20% of the living workforce isn't needed in the modern workforce.

5/15/2011 3:07:32 PM

Quote :

"First of all, filing for bankruptcy is being responsible for your actions. You fuck up your credit, potentially lose your possessions, your house, ect. It is the definition of owning up and suffering the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately this mass stampede of people owning up and suffering for their actions caused the rest of us to suffer..."

I guess this is where we see things differently. I see bankruptcy as a total cop-out. One day I owe $300,000 for a house, the next day, I owe nothing. Sure, I don't have that house anymore, but it was never mine in the first place. And yes, your credit is fucked up for a while (7-10 years).... but then again, if you really deserved to have credit in the first place, you probably wouldn't need to declare bankruptcy. Plus, you're getting "out" of a 30-year home lone essentially for free and only paying a penalty of a 7-10 year credit scar. That really doesn't sound like owning up to me. [/off topic]

And I totally agree with you that "unwanted" children should not be brought into the world. That's why I am a HUGE supporter of adoption - because you can be damn sure that someone out there wants that child.

5/15/2011 5:11:35 PM

I we outlaw abortion, the adoption scenario only works out for certain groups.

Black women account for a disproportionate number of abortions. For instance, they accounted for 45 percent of abortions in NC in 2006, but they make up only 21.6 percent of the population. Furthermore, I've seen reports (keep in mind, they're from anti-abortion agencies) that supposedly 2 out of 3 black pregnancies are terminated with abortion. Of course, of the 1 out of 3 pregnancies that are not aborted, some of those may end up in adoption or miscarriage so even the 1 out of 3 is not guaranteed to result in a child that grows up with the biological family. On the other end of things, black people disproportionately do not qualify to adopt. So what we end up with is a lot of black babies available for adoption and not a lot of black parents able to adopt. If we banned abortion and attempted to replace it with adoption, obviously the racial disparity between adoptable babies and adoptive families would get even greater.

In fact, if we imagine a world where abortion is outlawed and adoption is used instead, following the current statistics to their theoretical ends...we could see a country in which the majority of black children are raised in non-black homes (or foster/group homes). Of course, this would never happen! There would be a major intensification of the backlash against adoption in the black community. Black women would be discouraged from ever even considering adoption and would have to keep their unwanted pregnancies or seek an illegal/dangerous abortion instead.

So adoption as an alternative to illegal abortion would be a privilege primarily reserved for white women and the white families who are able to adopt.

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 6:23 PM. Reason : My post is really weird and it sounds crazy racist, but it is the truth.]

5/15/2011 6:14:25 PM