Abortion

Abortion

Some people says abortion should be banned since it results in the death of the baby. But how about the mother. What if she doesn't want the baby. Should she go through the torment of birth of an unwanted baby?

I created this very same topic back in 2007 or 2008.
Went something like 439 pages, but then again, this community was much larger then, and we had X-tian fundamentalists to argue with then too.
So much has changed since then......


Regardless, I am in the pro-choice camp.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Regardless, I am in the pro-choice camp.

Donate the fruit of your womb/seed to your cause, then. (And –of course– the adjective is appropriate: "Regardless!")

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

we had X-tian [sic] fundamentalists to argue with then too

Let me guess: Dawg meant to type X-Klan? (Kinda funny, from a guy who still won't admit that Jeff Davis cared more about preserving the institution of slavery than being an American…) But I'll agree, this far: This topic (abortion, as a "right" or as a political issue) is nowhere-near settled; very few societies have lasted long, where wanton killing was condoned — at least, in modern times.

Myself, I'd "choose" to keep the federal government away –far away– from this "issue." And recognize that religious (private?) organizations are both entitled to their views and empowered to live by them.

A free people can't be a democracy… And a democracy won't tolerate a free people.

Kind of own goal there from you OakdaleFTL. That would-be whimsical comment about President Davi being more concerned about slavery than being an American. If you are going to his the Mississipi man over the head try something more than a pointless feather and has no credibility at all. May I remind you of another Forum entry equally distant? It was where I stated that your President Lincoln, hailed as a freedom champion made it clear the black man was not to get wide franchise nor any further encouragement. And was quite happy to accept slavery if the Southern States stayed in the USA? What you need is a gey suited figure chasing you with a rifle and bayonet holding something at your backside as you run. Because damaging that would mean you couldn't speak!

As for the thread (raised yet again -groan) I have always been a bit unsure about abortion but I think I would err on choice.

I understand, RJ, that you're unfamiliar with the words Jeff Davis chose to publish… Dawg has no excuse to be; hence, I hold him to account for what he's said he admires. (Since I make few –if any– claims based upon Lincoln's administration or legacy qua Lincoln, I'm not sure what your point is. That's not unusual, of course: Except when you're "diss-ing" the U.S. or Israel, you don't seem to have one.)

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have always been a bit unsure about abortion but I think I would err on choice.

Would you have wanted your Mum to do so?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Myself, I'd "choose" to keep the federal government away –far away– from this "issue."

Me too.

Should condoms be banned?
O Yes
O No
O Perhaps
O Undecided
O Huh?
O WTF

Are you really trying to be silly OakdaleFTL?? May I remind you that you were the one who used Davis as being two-faced in your sling at thedawgfan and I pointed out the opposite number from your lot was very much a hypocrite. You were the one who raised the issue and I illustrated out the humbug. If you cannot see that you do have a problem so two-faced Lincoln equates with your yak at Davis.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

May I remind you that you were the one who used Davis as being two-faced in your sling at thedawgfan and I pointed out the opposite number from your lot was very much a hypocrite. You were the one who raised the issue and I illustrated out the humbug. If you cannot see that you do have a problem so two-faced Lincoln equates with your yak at Davis.

Indeed, and well put Mr. Howie.

It's a red herring regardless. This topic is about abortion, not the Civil War.

Oakdale, I'm going to be brief in this reply and this will be the last one ever addressed to you. I'm not sure what crawled up your arse and is eating your intestines, but I am done replying to you. I've always known you to be an exceedingly intelligent man with a unique way of replying to people, but this shite you've been posting of late really takes the biscuit and I'll be having no more of it, thanks. You condescending remarks and content in your whispers to me are totally unnecessary. As for my paper that I told you about last semester, I am not letting you see it. When I was in the UK and visited both String and GaryDenness, they both viewed the paper and saw nothing at all wrong with it. As such, I stick by my previous statements regarding that statement. Being as how it is of interest to this off-topic, topic at hand, know that I just got done using it again for my exam in Applied Writing and that I have received a 95 on it.

In conclusion, my views on President Davis are my own and I refuse to apologize for them.

I know all too well what you are trying to do and I'm not biting. You are using an appeal to emotion in your on-going effort to have me banned and I'll not be doing so, thanks.


Have a nice day and a nice life, and I sincerely hope whatever is eating away at you is rectified. Life's too short to be condescending all the time.

Adios old friend.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

[...]Applied Writing[...]

Excuse me, but in what consists applied writing discipline?

Sounds to me like the goal is some kind of essay or paper.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But I'll agree, this far: This topic (abortion, as a "right" or as a political issue) is nowhere-near settled; very few societies have lasted long, where wanton killing was condoned — at least, in modern times.

Indeed. Good thing we're not talking about wanton killing.

As for "would you want your Mum to have made the same choice?" - there's a lot of other choices and chances that could have had the same effect. Mum not meeting Dad, Mum not marrying Dad, Mum or Dad being medically infertile, Mum and Dad not choosing to have any (more) kids, Grandma and Granddad not meeting, etc., etc.

We rejoice in what has happened, not what hasn't, or what might have been.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Sounds to me like the goal is some kind of essay or paper.

Certainly, I can figure that, what intrigues me is what do they learn at it? Isn't English supposed to teach people how to write? I just know two kinds of writing, good and bad, regardless the subject that you're writing about.
Bottom line, it must be another manifestation of American culture fixed idea about specialization. Are they already specializing at the inexistent?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

As for "would you want your Mum to have made the same choice?" - there's a lot of other choices and chances that could have had the same effect. Mum not meeting Dad, Mum not marrying Dad, Mum or Dad being medically infertile, Mum and Dad not choosing to have any (more) kids, Grandma and Granddad not meeting, etc., etc.

Nonsense and an excuse to exempt people from responsibility for their own direct acts, revealing the lack of arguments of pro abortion position against the insurmountable rights of human life, be it a few weeks or many years old.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Nonsense and an excuse to exempt people from responsibility for their own direct acts, revealing the lack of arguments of pro abortion position against the insurmountable rights of human life, be it a few weeks or many years old.

Au contraire. You're leaping too far. One deconstruction of an anti-choice argument does not a pro-choice argument make, let alone all pro-choice arguments.

And you haven't even made a criticism of it.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

And you haven't even made a criticism of it.

I see... for you Mum not meeting Dad equals to Mum kills son. There's nothing to discus against that.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I see... for you Mum not meeting Dad equals to Mum kills son. There's nothing to discus against that.

Oh, there is. There most certainly is. Many things in that statement are worthy of discussion - for one, your presumptions on the nature of life and death, and your unwillingness to address the nature of consequences.

Is abortion the same as contraception? If not, why not?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Is abortion the same as contraception? If not, why not?

There's a "small" difference between before and after conception. Contraceptive methods that acts after conception are not contraceptive but abortive methods, as obvious for anyone that doesn't wants to delude himself exempting from moral responsibility.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Is abortion the same as contraception? If not, why not?

Abortion is too broad a term to compare directly with contraception. Overgeneralizing, first trimester abortions are the same, while second trimester abortions aren't. To detail it a bit more, it goes from a clump of human cells, to a gray area with the beginnings of a nervous system and a brain but no perception of pain, to a nervous system and a brain sufficiently developed to experience pain. Coincidentally that last development roughly coincides with the age from which a fetus can be artificially kept alive.

In practice most abortions take place within two months or aren't even allowed after two months, making the arguments of the anti-life crowd moot. Abortions that do take place after two months tend to be medically required. You might've noticed I used the word anti-life to refer to the self-proclaimed pro-life crowd. If they were truly pro-life they'd at the very least make sure the woman received some child support money or something, not to mention they should work toward making abortion unnecessary by following the Dutch example in matters of sex education*. Instead their alleged love and concern for any type of human life seems to end as soon as the fetus leaves the womb and becomes a baby. As long as it's alive, the quality of that life apparently doesn't matter.

* Very permissive abortion laws with abortion covered by health insurance, yet one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Abortion rates also tend to be higher in countries where abortion is outlawed.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

There's a "small" difference between before and after conception. Contraceptive methods that acts after conception are not contraceptive but abortive methods, as obvious for anyone that doesn't wants to delude himself exempting from moral responsibility.

Most fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. That's God's turf. The few consciously aborted by humans are several orders of magnitude less.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Most fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. That's God's turf. The few consciously aborted by humans are several orders of magnitude less.

When you need to count lives to determine if it's correct to kill them, there's no much more to say.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

There's a "small" difference between before and after conception. Contraceptive methods that acts after conception are not contraceptive but abortive methods, as obvious for anyone that doesn't wants to delude himself exempting from moral responsibility.

The problem with things that are "obvious" is that they're generally poorly thought-through. The distinction you have provided is one of terminology, not nature, or ethics. Engaging in safe sex, if you can't resist sex at all, is lauded as sensible and morally advisable. Why is fertilisation perceived to be the boundary between common-sense and murder?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Abortion is too broad a term to compare directly with contraception. Overgeneralizing, first trimester abortions are the same, while second trimester abortions aren't. To detail it a bit more, it goes from a clump of human cells, to a gray area with the beginnings of a nervous system and a brain but no perception of pain, to a nervous system and a brain sufficiently developed to experience pain. Coincidentally that last development roughly coincides with the age from which a fetus can be artificially kept alive.

Exactly. Now that is a worthy and sensible discussion.

I read recently that everybody who is in favor of abortion is already here. I suppose it could happen that an unborn child would choose not to be born, but we have no record of that.

Pro-life.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I read recently that everybody who is in favor of abortion is already here. I suppose it could happen that an unborn child would choose not to be born, but we have no record of that.

That makes no sense, and not just because we also don't have a record of unborn children voluntarily choosing to be born.

Are you saying that my (let's say, daughter) could not possibly be pro-choice? It's equally correct to say that everyone against abortion is already here. Are you saying that no-one who is pro-choice would ever carry a child to term?

That's reminds me of one of the arguments that Bantay used to use against evolution - i.e. because things have turned out this way, that's the only way they could have turned out.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Most fertilized eggs are aborted naturally. That's God's turf. The few consciously aborted by humans are several orders of magnitude less.

When you need to count lives to determine if it's correct to kill them, there's no much more to say.

Life and death aren't controlled by a simple on-off switch. Death is a process. You can still be reanimated after your heart stops beating and it takes hours before your organs degrade so much that you can't possibly be revived. However, the longer you wait, the less likely revival becomes. That's the principle behind cryonics — that in the future we'll be able to cure certain causes of death that we currently can't, as long as you're frozen within about two hours after death tops.

Coming from the other direction, the same applies. When new DNA forms on fertilization, it isn't suddenly life in any kind of more meaningful sense than the sperm and the egg were separately, but it has started progressing toward a gray area. Given that most fertilized eggs are naturally aborted, as I already said, we're only speaking about a higher potential to life than the sperm or the egg separately.

The reason I brought it up on the side is because it seems that according your argument, every woman is already mass murderer. My argument against your position doesn't consist of "what does one more matter?"

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The problem with things that are "obvious" is that they're generally poorly thought-through. The distinction you have provided is one of terminology, not nature, or ethics. Engaging in safe sex, if you can't resist sex at all, is lauded as sensible and morally advisable. Why is fertilisation perceived to be the boundary between common-sense and murder?

Because fertilization is exactly and rigorously the difference between an existing a life and a non existing life and abortion is about destroying existing lives. So, I've provided an exact distinction of the very self nature of life unlike you that are either trying to irritate me or keeping on flagrantly running away from the real problem.
Maybe letting to yourself those advices about poorly thought-through would be a good starting point.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Life and death aren't controlled by a simple on-off switch. Death is a process.

Disagree. Death is not a process but the end of life. Life is the process and starts at the moment of fertilization and ends with death.
You are confusing the medical difficulties and evolution on determining the very moment of physical death with death itself. The starting point it's so much well known for science, therefore an added reason for being against abortion.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Because fertilization is exactly and rigorously the difference between an existing a life and a non existing life and abortion is about destroying existing lives.

What is your basis for asserting this? You haven't thought this through.
Is an ovum cell alive? Is a sperm alive? Is a zygote alive? What demonstrable characteristic does a zygote have that the previous two do not?

The claim that this is a rigorous definition is laughable. So far, you claim an arbitrary distinction. You define a 'life' as being something that doesn't exist at one point, but spontaneously exists afterwards. It's appealing to be able to paint things in such black-and-white strokes, but all that is is word games. You say that a person exists at the point of fertilisation, when it's just as reasonable to say that a person exists at the point of a nervous system emerging, or at the point of having enough neural matter to react to stimuli. Is there any way of guaranteeing 'correctness' on any of these?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

So, I've provided an exact distinction of the very self nature of life unlike you that are either trying to irritate me or keeping on flagrantly running away from the real problem.

I have exactly zero interest in irritating you. But I do want you to justify your prejudices.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Is an ovum cell alive? Is a sperm alive? Is a zygote alive?

Remember biology 101? Difference between gamete cells and a zygote? The gametes only have half of the chromosomes. Are you made of half of chromosomes? The zygote is the first complete cell after fertilization that develops, without no interference external to natural life processes, into a full human being at maturity and decays by aging until natural death.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You say that a person exists at the point of fertilisation, when it's just as reasonable to say that a person exists at the point of a nervous system emerging, or at the point of having enough neural matter to react to stimuli.

False, I didn't said that a "person" exists, I said that a human life exists.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Remember biology 101? Difference between gamete cells and a zygote? The gametes only have half of the chromosomes. Are you made of half of chromosomes? The zygote is the first complete cell after fertilization that develops, without no interference external to natural life processes, into a full human being at maturity and decays by aging until natural death.

Yes. You've folded a lot of unnecessary lifespan into that answer, but I'll bring the focus back. Egg and sperm have just fused into a zygote. Great. What is now there that wasn't there before?

An ovum is also a cell that develops, without interference external to natural life processes, into a full human being at maturity and decays by aging until natural death. There are a lot of additional steps that must happen after the ovum comes into existence that must all take place in sequence for this to happen. Fertilisation is only one of them, and yet you are confident in pushing the pin into the map at that point only. Why place the dividing line at that arbitrary point in the process?

A bowl of flour and a jug of milk is not a cake, but then neither is a bowl of dough. A tree is not a newspaper, even once it's been pressed into paper.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

False, I didn't said that a "person" exists, I said that a human life exists.

*sigh* Fine. Search and replace it is then.

"You say that a human life exists at the point of fertilisation, when it's just as reasonable to say that a human life exists at the point of a nervous system emerging, or at the point of having enough neural matter to react to stimuli."

Besides, your original phrasing about natural processes is incorrect. Many of the steps in the process can also be done artificially - are IVF-conceived children not considered human?

You keep diverging from the question, each time at a deepest mental swamp.
When you admit what can't be refused, then we can move to what really interests the "pro-choice" supporters - what should be the punishment for doing it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Excuse me, but in what consists applied writing discipline?

Applied Writing is a course I needed for my degree in Homeland Security (terrorism prevention)

Not quite sure why I needed it either, but what it is, is a course designed to eliminate minute errors in grammer and to help the student in public speaking. One writes a paper, then gives a short 5-7 minute speech on it.

Quite the fun class for me and I have passed it with a high "A". (highest letter grade you can receive in American academia.(

I'm all for allowing abortion. The women should be allowed to chose whether they want to abort the baby. They shouldn't have to keep an unwanted baby. Plus, child birth is dangerous and the mother can die during child birth.

Oh-ho. Our thedawgfan may be a forthcoming spy..........

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Quite the fun class for me and I have passes it with a high "A". (highest letter grade you can receive in American academia.(

Congrats on the A!

I'm typically pro-life, being that there are steps a woman can take to prevent pregnancy prior to conception. That being said, I do believe there are certain circumstances in which abortions are more than acceptable. What if a woman was raped? I can't see how anyone could possibly see it necessary for her to carry an unwelcomed reminder of that tragedy inside of her for nine months. Also, in cases of potential harm to the mother. There are just some instances where having the choice is necessary.

I suppose since I can't "straddle the fence"... Pro-choice.

But no, from the other forum, do not ban the condoms!

Originally posted by smswift82:

I'm typically pro-life, being that there are steps a woman can take to prevent pregnancy prior to conception. That being said, I do believe there are certain circumstances in which abortions are more than acceptable. What if a woman was raped?

Certainly.
Rape or cases where, by some medical condition, the life of the mother it's at high risk, are examples of admissible abortion.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

You keep diverging from the question, each time at a deepest mental swamp.When you admit what can't be refused, then we can move to what really interests the "pro-choice" supporters - what should be the punishment for doing it.

Sure, go with the personal attacks, if that's easier.

The simple fact remains that classification of when a ball of cells can be considered an independent human life is a completely arbitrary designation. There is no biological or ontological dividing line. It's convenient to pick fertilisation, or implantation, but not particularly useful or rigorous.

Biology is full of that kind of stuff, sadly.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Sure, go with the personal attacks, if that's easier.

No use for you playing the victim johnnysaucepn, the true is never an attack.
And your affirmation that there is no biological or ontological dividing line (between a gamete and a zygote) don't even makes me laugh.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

And your affirmation that there is no biological or ontological dividing line (between a gamete and a zygote) don't even makes me laugh.

No, between a gamete, a zygote, an embryo and a human being. There is no single characteristic that a ball of cells has that can clearly identify it as "a life" (as opposed to "alive").
Any distinction we make is arbitrary. It's up to us to decide what dividing line we think is correct, and many, many, people - particularly medical people - don't believe that fertilisation is the right point.

You can claim absolute objective knowledge on the subject, but you're going to have to back it up with more than "just because".

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by smswift82:

I'm typically pro-life, being that there are steps a woman can take to prevent pregnancy prior to conception. That being said, I do believe there are certain circumstances in which abortions are more than acceptable. What if a woman was raped?

Certainly.
Rape or cases where, by some medical condition, the life of the mother it's at high risk, are examples of admissible abortion.

When the life of the mother is in danger losing the mother necessarily means losing the fetus, so it's better to save only one than to lose two, but why would abortion due to rape "certainly" be acceptable?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

When the life of the mother is in danger losing the mother necessarily means losing the fetus, so it's better to save only one than to lose two, but why would abortion due to rape "certainly" be acceptable?

By the very simple reason that a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy from a raper it's against the dignity of human beings. She didn't make any sexual act in free will, she was forced to be the victim of some maniac.

But what about "the insurmountable rights of human life"? The embryo or fetus didn't commit any offense.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

But what about "the insurmountable rights of human life"? The embryo or fetus didn't commit any offense.

The rights stands. Ask the raper the responsibility, isn't it?
He's not only the sole responsible for the crime committed against the woman as well as, in case of a resulting pregnancy, for the consequent abortion.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

He's not only the sole responsible for the crime committed against the woman as well as, in case of a resulting pregnancy, for the consequent abortion.

So, murder's okay as long as you can pin the blame on someone else?

Abortion is ok....I'm fine with it, just as long as there is a nine month waiting period prior to having one.