Abortion

[BlacKnight]

I agree with your reply to me ultima, but look at things a little deeper.  If the church was doing it's job, reaching people through love and compassion, instead of having a cynical burn-in-hell-you-fool-you're-to-far-gone attitude how exactly would that affect people?  I'll tell you how, it's happened within a few miles of me.  There is a huge church near me, some people say that anything goes there (ie. anything bad) and you know what?  They're partially right.  Because these people don't look down their noses at hurting sinful folks, they love them!  Pretty crazy isn't it?  I haven't gone there too much yet, but I plan to

  You remember what Paul said?  "..though I have all these things, without love I am nothing.."
So what I'm saying is, you're partially right; but why does what you say hold true?

Eon, I'll reply later.  I've got to get going though.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Why does what I say hold, or what Paul say hold? Well, for one, Paul's got God on his side. I'm telling exactly what the world has in stock for the world. Either way, we both hold. The world does what the world wills. If the world wants a worldwide no-sex-it's-cool campaign, then it will have one. BUt right now it's free-sex-is-cool-do-everyone campaign.
Answer later. Ciao.

 

[Mr_Eon]

I'm sorry... I started writing a rebuttal to the rebuttals I received, but antipathy and ennui just rose up and swallowed my will to continue. Your opinions are obsolete. They aren't invalid so much as they are irrelevant these days. So fine - continue your "pro-life" stance, campaign outside clinics... It won't change anything, because you're fighting to change the end result, rather than the root causes. Doing exactly the thing you accuse those of wanting to ban guns of doing.

America was a country founded on the concept of FREEDOM, supposedly.

Freedom of expression, of association, of worship and of thought. It seems that you are fighting to become the repressive nations that your ancestors fled four centuries ago.

Eon

 

[Kidan]

Eon, yes and no. Yes we are challenging the end result rather than the root of the problem, that has a lot to deal with the utter failure of church leaders to explain why sex is best left to within marriage and so on an so on (which is a whole other topic). But at the same time, we are fighting a horrid practice. That end result you are talking about is the destruction of a human life. It is not a 'part' of the mother because from the moment of conception it has it's own unique dna. We are fighting the destruction of this life, especially in light of the fact that killing a cat will get you jail time.

What is being said is that the life of a cat is more important than the life of a child, is that the actions of a civilized nation?

that said, do note that I am not against birth control that prevents conception. I am only against the destruction of the newly formed human life.

now onto freedom, freedom means that EVERYONE has the right to freedom and the right to choice. Yet abortion denies that right to the new human.

 

[Mr_Eon]

At a certain stage I agree with you - I personally think there should be much tighter controls over what stage an abortion should take place. I don't understand your stance on contraception though - if you're against the practice of denying choice to unborn humans, then how about all those potential pregnancies that are terminated every day at the point of conception?

The sperm and ova have their own DNA, after all, and if left to develop on their own they would form into a fetus. So what's the difference?

Morally, there is none. Logically there is none. You're talking about spoiled potential in both cases. Perhaps you would feel better served if the fetus was removed whole and left to fend for itself. If it dies, or fails to support itself to term, then no harm no foul? Isn't that what society does to those who have severe brain damage when they take them off life support and wait for nature to take its course?

Eon

 

[Tom Kazansky]

I'm going to push on with your latest responses anyways, because you've got flawed logic.

Quote[/b] ]Doing exactly the thing you accuse those of wanting to ban guns of doing.

Actually, we're not. I don't understand how you drew that connection. Come to think of it, aren't you one of the people who wants guns banned?

Quote[/b] ]America was a country founded on the concept of FREEDOM, supposedly.

People like to throw the word "freedom" around like a toy, but they seldom give any thought as to what it means. I'm going to provided some examples to illustrate why your use of this term is improper when it comes to slaughtering children.

My collegue has left his wallet on his desk, do I have the freedom to steal the money inside?

Dr. Colossus is really getting to me. Does freedom imply that I can grab a shotgun and teach him a lesson?

Hey look, there's that jerk who lied to me! Do I have the freedom to pour sugar in his gas tank?

Abortionists seem to intentionally forget that with freedom comes consequences for inappropriate action. This is why the "freedom" argument is invalid in this case, as it doesn't follow what that term is supposed to imply.

Quote[/b] ]Freedom of expression, of association, of worship and of thought.

But not freedom to harm other individuals, which has been placed in law, and only those who don't want to be responsible for their bad decisions are pushing to "reform" it.

Quote[/b] ]At a certain stage I agree with you - I personally think there should be much tighter controls over what stage an abortion should take place.

But that also doesn't make any sense Eon. The stage should not make any difference! Is a child not a human because it hasn't reached adulthood? What makes this different? Zygote and fetus are different stages of human development, just like child and mature adult are. It's no different, but again, people WANT to make it different so they can take the easy way out if they don't want a pregnancy, without having to sacrifice sexual activity to do it.

Quote[/b] ]I don't understand your stance on contraception though - if you're against the practice of denying choice to unborn humans, then how about all those potential pregnancies that are terminated every day at the point of conception?

This is a VERY valid point that you just brought up, but I think that there is a difference in this case. You see, if there is no sperm to egg penetration, than a human life has not been created, and therefore you are not terminating a human life by strapping on the rubber. Scientists define life beginning at conception, so if conception hasn't occured than there has been no termination of life. Potentially there would have been, but preventing and terminating are different things.

A sperm is not a human being, neither is an egg. I don't cry over the turkey I eat for lunch either. Also, semen is released with urine anyways, and there is no termination of a human life in that case either.

Quote[/b] ]You're talking about spoiled potential in both cases.

That's true, but only in one case has a human life been terminated, and that happens post-conception. If there is no conception, than a human life has not been slaughtered.

Before Julias Caeser crossed the Rubikon, he was still obeying the law. Once his army crossed it, however, that was it, he had to march to Rome.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps you would feel better served if the fetus was removed whole and left to fend for itself. If it dies, or fails to support itself to term, then no harm no foul?

Well, we also know that it is impossible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb. It's no different than what the Spartans used to do with "imperfect" babies. They knew leaving it on the cliff would mean it would die, but they themselves were not "pulling the trigger" so to speak. Then again, people who hire hitmen don't pull the trigger either, but it doesn't mean they're innocent.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't that what society does to those who have severe brain damage when they take them off life support and wait for nature to take its course?

But does the baby you're killing have severe brain damage? Different case I think.

 

[Mr_Eon]

Well, it doesn't have a 100% developed human brain, does it? By clinical definition a fetus would have to count as largely handicapped, wouldn't it?

Consequences, you mentioned... Without mentioning the consequences of unleashing a plague of unwanted children on the world. Oh yeah, adoption... Well, it works out there would be nowhere near enough foster parents - and, of course, the longer the child is in care the less and less likely it is to find a home. How long would it take before the social welfare systems of the Western world collapsed or mutated into barracks style camps, do you think?

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Holy crap, Eon. How can this country be a country if freedom if that freedom is limited? That puts us off as no better than Socialists. We left a monarchy to form a democracy. That democracy is disintegrating with choices, such as making abortion legal, and restricting "free speech" into a socialist nightmare. Animal Farm's prophecies ring true. "Thou shalt not sleep in beds (with sheets)". Thou shalt not sleep in beds was the law...then the government pigs changed it into "Thou shalt not sleep in beds (with sheets)"
What are we doing? Thou shalt not murder, in so many words, is what we say. Thou shalt not kill thy babies (if they're born). Thou shalt not murder (unless it's an unborn child). What's up with us?
Consequently, Eon, umm....given any amount of time, no egg is going to turn into a baby unless it is fused with a sperm. No matter how hard you try it. It won't work. Given no amount of time nor any amount of DNA, sperm won't turn into kids, nor shall ovum.
Removing the fetus from the body and expecting it to live is not what we're asking. Holy crap-a-molie. Ask your parents to babysnatch you before you were born and stick you out in the peatbogs and grow up into a man. It won't happen. You need protection, a guardian, a nourisher, and an incubator. All from a human body.
A plague of unwanted children? How Moses-esque. Great Pharaoh didn't like the Hebrew guys all popping out. So, kill em. Why not? Why not? Herod didn't want a potential King of the Jews, so he slaughters a bunch of them? You know what, I hope Bush issues out a mandate to legalize the slaughter of kids under three to prevent anyone from growing up and potentially challenging American governing, and the army moves about killing them all.
Better yet, let's go further. Let's end it all. Let's not trouble the rest of the galaxy with a plague of unwanted humans. Let's neutron bomb Earth to death. Mass suicide, all around the world. Life holds no worth. No purpose. It all ends in blackness, anyways, right? Mass suicide everyone! Kill yourselves!
Holy crap! No! What are we going to do? In order to prevent the social breakdown of a craptastic nation, we kill the kids? What does that leave us with? A plague of Ronald Reagans, right? 94 year old geezers who have Alzheimers. Let's eliminate the people over 20, because that's old. And then let's abort all the kids made from the 20 year olds and below, leaving us with the ripe 20 year olds. Then as the years advance, kill them, too.
Eventually, Earth will be wiped out. But you know, since we're evolving, in a few million years, we'll be back plaguing the rest of the universe. Never forget that.
If we're going to go through different stages, let's eliminate all life, because ALL life goes through different stages. Vegetable, animal, cell, human. Let's just roast this freaking globe alive. Come on! Bring on the matches!
I desire a rebuttal.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]Well, it doesn't have a 100% developed human brain, does it? By clinical definition a fetus would have to count as largely handicapped, wouldn't it?

But it's at a particular stage of life where it's not supposed to have a fully developed brain. A baby can't reproduce, should they be killed off because of this?

Quote[/b] ]Consequences, you mentioned... Without mentioning the consequences of unleashing a plague of unwanted children on the world. Oh yeah, adoption... Well, it works out there would be nowhere near enough foster parents - and, of course, the longer the child is in care the less and less likely it is to find a home. How long would it take before the social welfare systems of the Western world collapsed or mutated into barracks style camps, do you think?

Probably about the same amount of time it would take before the world would be forced to pass laws where you're restricted to how many children you can have, like in China. I also assume that some brilliant intellectual may tell people it's a good idea to stop having sex like rabbits, but since that's too tough....

I'm amazed that your answer to the overpopulation problem in the world is to kill off children rather than telling people to abstain. Abstinance is possible Eon, I havn't had sex yet....

 

[Mr_Eon]

Maybe that explains why you're so #### uptight about those of us who have...

Abstinence is NOT a sensible solution to over population. I agree that it's the best solution, morally, but PRACTICALLY it's bunk. And you cannot have laws prohibiting childbirth without providing a mechanism for abortion, unless of course you make it illegal to have sex.

Let's see how THAT flies.

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

We're not making laws to prevent childbirth...we're just making laws to prevent freaking abortion. The thing about birth is letting the kid live, not killing it before it breathes.
We're not attacking people who aren't virgins by any means. We're just attacking the fact that we are killing the products of those activities: humans.
And, uh, Eon, can you answer my posts about just wiping out the entire human race to prevent us from plaguing the galaxy? What do you think about that, eh/

 

[CCGR]

Abstinence not sensible? It avoids a lot of problems and it doens't make you uptight. (speaking of myths..)

the second best alternative is condoms..protects against pregnancy and many STDs

but at last some people don't think to use them. You play with fire you might get burned. Wish people in this world would take responcibility for their actions.

 

[Kidan]

How can abstinence be bunk? Are you saying that humans can't control their sexual drives and desires? If that's the case, then rape, pedophilia, and all those other horrid sex crimes are just because the perpetrator is the victim of an urge.


No, I don't believe that. Common animals can't control their sexual urges. They also aren't sentient. Humans have the ability to deny/control their urges, sexual or otherwise.

If we treated pre-marital sex the same way cigarette sales are treated, it would drop. If we had those (imo idiotic) TRUTH ads running for abstinence instead of anti-smoking then we would probably be surprised at the changes in the instances of teen-pregnancy and what-not.

 

[Mr_Eon]

I tell you what - you give it a whirl.  Try telling people that they shouldn't have sex - you'll get nowhere. I mean, after all, if AIDS doesn't stop people from recreational bonking, then your "fluffy bunny" feelings for an unborn fetus certainly won't.

I've already said that Abstinence is the sensiblest, lowest cost, highest success choice for avoiding unwanted pregnancy. I just don't think that the kind of people who would willingly adopt it are really the kind of people you need to worry about selling it to anyway. Let's face it, it's the ONLY choice for those unwilling to have neither an abortion or an unwanted child.

But it's never going to be a widespread choice, because the urge to have sex is too deeply imprinted on us. That's a fact.

I mean - you chose smoking as an example (thanks for that!) did you know that if you examine young females over the last twenty years the curve has actually started trending back upwards again?

I know - it seems ridiculous to ME too! But here I'm sat with a bad head cold, hacking my guts out because my wife can't stop indulging that monkey that she WILLINGLY put on her own back when she started smoking!

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

That monkey? What monkey?
Yeah, guys, Eon did say it would be the mest, but logically, no. People want sex. They won't deny it. Though I must say: it is more than just possible to control yourself. People don't have to fall to whatever urge they desire. They can stop it. It's simplistic. But when you have peer pressure, negative propaganda (in a moralistic view) proposing sex as something for all, and the availabilty of it at the drop of a hat, it's easy to fall into it.
Habitual? No. Traditional? For kid-making, yeah. There's no point to going hog-wild in sex all the time. And people can stop it. Why they deny that is beyond me.
Abstinence is so easy, but so many deny it. In a few years, I expect all the virgins in the world to be gone except for a few pockets of those who resisted until marriage, and then they find out their spouse isn't a virgin, either.
And as the world-renown phrase shoots about: "Sex sells." Point made.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe that explains why you're so #### uptight about those of us who have...

Don't you think I'm able to do it if I really wanted to? I'm a mature adult male, I'm above the legal age for sex, but I'm not going to have it right now. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First of all, anyone who has sex and risks childbirth in my situtation is a moron. I'm getting ready to ship out to university, and I have neither the time nor the money to maintain a child. So I'm not going to risk creating one. The second is that I intend to wait until I'm married because than there is a full commitment to the result by both parties.

Quote[/b] ]Abstinence is NOT a sensible solution to over population. I agree that it's the best solution, morally, but PRACTICALLY it's bunk.

How is abstinence not a sensible solution to over population? Are you saying that companies shouldn't employ cost cutting measures if they're spending more money than they're making in profit? Practically, it's not bunk because in practice it WORKS when it comes to preventing pregnancy, something that sex cannot say for itself. What's bunk is that people have no will power and don't make intelligent decisions when it comes to sex.

Quote[/b] ]And you cannot have laws prohibiting childbirth without providing a mechanism for abortion, unless of course you make it illegal to have sex.

Ever heard of China?

Quote[/b] ]I tell you what - you give it a whirl. Try telling people that they shouldn't have sex - you'll get nowhere. I mean, after all, if AIDS doesn't stop people from recreational bonking, then your "fluffy bunny" feelings for an unborn fetus certainly won't.

You're right, which is why we need politicians who will actually present their true feelings when it comes to these kind of issues. They're more concerned with demagogery, though, and since the loudest groups are left-wing we're going to have socially left-wing governments.

Quote[/b] ]But it's never going to be a widespread choice, because the urge to have sex is too deeply imprinted on us. That's a fact.

Yes but by the same note, cleptomaniacs have a strong urge to steal, but it would not be right to exempt them from anti-theft laws either.

Quote[/b] ]I mean - you chose smoking as an example (thanks for that!) did you know that if you examine young females over the last twenty years the curve has actually started trending back upwards again?

You're right, and that's too bad

. Smoking is a MAJOR turn off for me. If you're a smoker, forget it, I'll look elsewhere.

 

[Kidan]

Noting your 'upward curve' smoking is an addictive habit. nicotine is habit forming.

Sex is not. That is the major difference. I will always be of the opinion that humans can control their lusts, for if we can't then how sentient and self-aware are we exactly?


My example was for the public-service ads they use to stop smoking here in the states. In my father's lifetime smoking went from something they did in school, to something that (now in the state of florida) you can't do anywhere but outside and in your own home. It would take a generation but if we taught children about abstinence the same way they are taught anti-smoking ti would curtail pre-marital sex. Would it eliminate it? no. but it would curtail it.

 

[Saint Judas]

Excellent justification for the slaughter of innocent children!  

This "debate" is most likely going to be completely non productive because the fact is, scientists themselves do not know for sure when life begins and as such, for those who believe life does *not* begin at conception, naturally they will not see themselves as murderers. To be honest, all differences of opinion aside, I think that *this* is the crux of the matter and that many people who have abortions are not "bad" or even immoral people, they simply disagree that life begins at conception.

Also, just out of curiosity, what is your (and anyone else who cares to comment) opinion on young girls who are just barely old enough to bear children yet end up pregnant as a result of rape, incest or any combination of atrocities? They *themselves* are children, and often the act of giving birth puts their own life at stake. Do we sacrifice one child for the other, and if so, how do we pick which one? And whose decision is it anyway, should it be up to someone else to choose when it's the child whose life is at stake?

Contrary to what appears to be the popular belief here, abortions aren't just performed for irresponsible girls who want the procedure done out of convenience, *nor* is the man in the relationship always on the "pro" side of giving birth. I have known women who wanted to carry their pregnancies to term but were pressured by their husbands/boyfriends/fiances to have an abortion. So, though I agree that the man should be part of the decision, his being a part of the decision-making process does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that there will be fewer abortions. In some cases women have been reassured that they would have help if they gave birth and then the father disappeared or simply refused to help when the baby actually arrived.

Ideally I am against abortion, but realistically I also realize that there are situations where there IS no black and white, "yes" or "no" answer. The abortion issue isn't the kind of thing that you can just put in a box and label as "right" or "wrong". It's not as simple a matter as we'd like it to be. It would be nice if w could make an across the board judgement but imo we simply cannot.

Take care everyone.   -Saint J

PS: I am new at using the "quote" feature (heck, I am new at using ALL the features lol) and I don't know how it usually appears on the "compose" page, so I apologize if comes through as jumbled html code.

 

[Saint Judas]

reposting this because it came out looking really strange the first time:
____

Tom Kazansky: Excellent justification for the slaughter of innocent children!

This "debate" is most likely going to be completely non productive because the fact is, scientists themselves do not know for sure when life begins and as such, for those who believe life does *not* begin at conception, naturally they will not see themselves as murderers. To be honest, all differences of opinion aside, I think that *this* is the crux of the matter and that many people who have abortions are not "bad" or even immoral people, they simply disagree that life begins at conception.

Also, just out of curiosity, what is your (and anyone else who cares to comment) opinion on young girls who are just barely old enough to bear children yet end up pregnant as a result of rape, incest or any combination of atrocities? They *themselves* are children, and often the act of giving birth puts their own life at stake. Do we sacrifice one child for the other, and if so, how do we pick which one? And whose decision is it anyway, should it be up to someone else to choose when it's the child whose life is at stake?

Contrary to what appears to be the popular belief here, abortions aren't just performed for irresponsible girls who want the procedure done out of convenience, *nor* is the man in the relationship always on the "pro" side of giving birth. I have known women who wanted to carry their pregnancies to term but were pressured by their husbands/boyfriends/fiances to have an abortion. So, though I agree that the man should be part of the decision, his being a part of the decision-making process does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that there will be fewer abortions. In some cases women have been reassured that they would have help if they gave birth and then the father disappeared or simply refused to help when the baby actually arrived.

Ideally I am against abortion, but realistically I also realize that there are situations where there IS no black and white, "yes" or "no" answer. The abortion issue isn't the kind of thing that you can just put in a box and label as "right" or "wrong". It's not as simple a matter as we'd like it to be. It would be nice if w could make an across the board judgement but imo we simply cannot.

Take care everyone. -Saint J

PS: I am new at using the "quote" feature (heck, I am new at using ALL the features lol) and I don't know how it usually appears on the "compose" page, so I apologize if comes through as jumbled html code.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]This "debate" is most likely going to be completely non productive because the fact is, scientists themselves do not know for sure when life begins and as such, for those who believe life does *not* begin at conception, naturally they will not see themselves as murderers. To be honest, all differences of opinion aside, I think that *this* is the crux of the matter and that many people who have abortions are not "bad" or even immoral people, they simply disagree that life begins at conception.

Are you sure about that? I'm going to show you a quote from Dr. Hymie Gordon, who is a professor of medical genetics, as well as a physician at the Mayo Clinic. Let's look at what he has to say about your statement.

Quote[/b] ]I think that we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life---when life begins---is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.

[Emphasis added]

Do you agree with Dr. Gordon? I'm pretty sure he's a better authority on the subject than either of use wouldn't you agree?

Quote[/b] ]Also, just out of curiosity, what is your (and anyone else who cares to comment) opinion on young girls who are just barely old enough to bear children yet end up pregnant as a result of rape, incest or any combination of atrocities? They *themselves* are children, and often the act of giving birth puts their own life at stake. Do we sacrifice one child for the other, and if so, how do we pick which one? And whose decision is it anyway, should it be up to someone else to choose when it's the child whose life is at stake?

One of my cousins is the product of a date rape, and he turned out to be a fantastic guy(and a great Christian might I add).

This question comes up in every discussion, and the answer never changes. The severity of the situation will often prevent people from seeing the big picture. Killing the child doesn't make the situation any better, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we'll allow abortions in cases of rape. A study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology(1971) pinned a figure of 0.6% pregnancies in cases of rape. I don't care about the margin of error, because that figure PROVES that people aren't using abortion as a result of being raped. They're using it as birth control! That's just a disgusting thought isn't it? As for incest. What can I say? Don't kick the boots with your cousin and that's it for that case!

Also, there is ALWAYS a risk to the mother in any child-birth situation, this isn't unique to rape and incest. Death is rare thanks to newer medical technology, but it did happen more often back in the day. A danger to the mother is not an abortion support point, it's an anti-pro-creation support point.

The part that you left out, intentionally or not, is that there is also risk of death and other harm to the mother as a result of having an abortion! That's right, people have died because of them. Here's a website that shows a few cases. It's an anti-abortion website obviously, but their sources are cited so you can verify them if you have doubts. The main point is that if the possibility of death due to pregnancy will constitute a case for abortion, than the chance of death due to abortion should kill that argument.

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/abortiondeaths.html

Quote[/b] ]Contrary to what appears to be the popular belief here, abortions aren't just performed for irresponsible girls who want the procedure done out of convenience, *nor* is the man in the relationship always on the "pro" side of giving birth. I have known women who wanted to carry their pregnancies to term but were pressured by their husbands/boyfriends/fiances to have an abortion. So, though I agree that the man should be part of the decision, his being a part of the decision-making process does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that there will be fewer abortions. In some cases women have been reassured that they would have help if they gave birth and then the father disappeared or simply refused to help when the baby actually arrived.

Which is why premarital sex is a dangerous thing. At least when you're married there will be a far greater chance of commitment from both parties. On the same note, suggesting that it's possible one parant may not support the child is a supporting for abortion is also a premis for abolishing pro-creation entirely. which I'm certain is not the result you're looking for.