Abortion: Murder

[weakandpowerless]

To make another point, I feel this issue is one thats full circle. Everyone seems to be searching for an ideal solution, and if we continue on this path then progress will never be made. We must give and take. Making abortion illegal once the child is no longer braindead seems like a nice first step, however this does not address the issue of what should be acceptable reasons for having an abortion. If we don't set limits, abortion will just become birth control. However, this also brings up the issue of credibility. People would lie about their reason just to get an abortion, and whos to have the evidence that they lied? And even if they did present the evidence, should criminal charges be put on the couple? I give up, too many holes to fill :hihi:

[Buffy]

If we don't set limits, abortion will just become birth control.

This is a fallacious argument. Even in the Soviet Union, the closest example to this situation, it was recognized that repeated abortions at the very least were not good for your reproductive health, and as with *any* medical procedure--especially one performed by under-paid commrade physicians--there was a risk to your body everytime you had one.

 

As anyone, even the most pro-abortion, who has had one will tell you, its not "easy" to decide to have one. The number of people who can cynically go and have one abortion after another is probably proportional to the number of sociopaths out there. This is a red herring issue, and has no relevance to any "reasonable" debate.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[weakandpowerless]

This is a fallacious argument. Even in the Soviet Union, the closest example to this situation, it was recognized that repeated abortions at the very least were not good for your reproductive health, and as with *any* medical procedure--especially one performed by under-paid commrade physicians--there was a risk to your body everytime you had one.

 

As anyone, even the most pro-abortion, who has had one will tell you, its not "easy" to decide to have one. The number of people who can cynically go and have one abortion after another is probably proportional to the number of sociopaths out there. This is a red herring issue, and has no relevance to any "reasonable" debate.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

Can you please provide a source? Because I heard abortion was one of the safest procedures in the United States.

[Edge]

You can't go gray?

 

Your stance can be that abortion will be legal only for rare cases of rape and when the mother's life is at risk upon birth. Just in this cases is acceptable, and it does not justify making all abortions legal.

[Buffy]

Can you please provide a source? Because I heard abortion was one of the safest procedures in the United States.

Oh it is. It wasn't very safe in the Soviet Union, but then again, very little medicine there was (and still isn't). But abortions were *free* providing no economic disincentive.

 

Here, they're easy and safe *if* they are performed by a trained physician. The machinery of the uterus is delecate though, and especially with second and third trimester abortions, the risk of damage increases. Its still way safer than most other surgery, but really, if I asked you if you wanted to have a lasik *every month* you'd probably think twice, even though it too is considered very safe and outpatient provided. The problem is that as abortion becomes unavailable, the number of procedures performed by *unqualified* people increases dramatically, resulting in the "backroom butchery" that used to make the enforcers of the Spanish Inquisition look like consciencious doctors. You want a bloodbath of death? Make abortion illegal.

 

The real fallacy is that women can be so cavalier about it that it takes no thought. In fact the whole point of this argument is to say that *any* woman who would choose to have an abortion is incredibly selfish, cruel, cold, atheistic, evil, murderous, traitorous and is probably a Democrat. Its simply an effective way to rally the faithful and make it into the "us-them" contest you're trying to avoid. On the other side, people forget that reacting directly to these epithets by taking the polar opposite position and calling the other side names too does not help the cause. Don't let the blithering idiots get to you.

 

Been there, done that,

Buffy

[Buffy]

You can't go gray?...Your stance can be that abortion will be legal only for rare cases of rape and when the mother's life is at risk upon birth. Just in this cases is acceptable, and it does not justify making all abortions legal.

Grey could also be abortion on demand in the first trimester is legal. It could be fetuses with Downs syndrome detected in the third trimester are legal. It could be allowing a brain-dead premature baby starve. Where do you draw the line? As Craig's history above points out, the culturally "acceptable" line is quite broad.

 

If parents *must* have the ability to veto their daughter's decision to have an abortion, why shouldn't they have the veto power over society's insistence that they not be alowed to have one? In one case parents rights are sacrosanct and in the other case they are not?

 

Gray is grey. That's the point. It's *not* clear. Read Melville.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[weakandpowerless]

You can't go gray?

 

Your stance can be that abortion will be legal only for rare cases of rape and when the mother's life is at risk upon birth. Just in this cases is acceptable, and it does not justify making all abortions legal.

 

 

What about incest? I also heard from somewhere the idea of allowing the baby to be removed from the womb and then allowing it to die of natural causes. Sounds a bit torturous to me, but I thought I'd throw that idea out there to get peoples opinions on.

[weakandpowerless]

Grey could also be abortion on demand in the first trimester is legal. It could be fetuses with Downs syndrome detected in the third trimester are legal. It could be allowing a brain-dead premature baby starve. Where do you draw the line? As Craig's history above points out, the culturally "acceptable" line is quite broad.

 

If parents *must* have the ability to veto their daughter's decision to have an abortion, why shouldn't they have the veto power over society's insistence that they not be alowed to have one? In one case parents rights are sacrosanct and in the other case they are not?

 

Gray is grey. That's the point. It's *not* clear. Read Melville.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

My stance is to allow abortion be legal until the child is no longer braindead. However, abortions would only be done on rape and incest victims, or if the mother's life was on the line.

[CraigD]

What do you guys think of educational videos being made on abortion and being played in school's health classes all across the nation?

I was unaware that this was happening. What are they like?

 

With no school age children, I’ve little day-to-day awareness of what goes on in the schools. Early this year, I recall that the local (Montgomery county, MD, USA) teacher’s objected to and had removed a proposed sex education curriculum that many thought discouraged the used of condoms, on the grounds that such a curriculum was unsupported by statistical evidence, and represented a threat to student health. Some referred to this as an “abstinence only” curriculum, and suggested that it was being promoted to the school board by one or more religiously motivated “front organizations” posing as legitimate health education organizations. I live, however, in a high average income, high average level of education county, so may be incorrect in my hopeful assumption that similar events are occurring in most US counties.

[Edge]

I was unaware that this was happening. What are they like?

 

With no school age children, I’ve little day-to-day awareness of what goes on in the schools. Early this year, I recall that the local (Montgomery county, MD, USA) teacher’s objected to and had removed a proposed sex education curriculum that many thought discouraged the used of condoms, on the grounds that such a curriculum was unsupported by statistical evidence, and represented a threat to student health. Some referred to this as an “abstinence only” curriculum, and suggested that it was being promoted to the school board by one or more religiously motivated “front organizations” posing as legitimate health education organizations. I live, however, in a high average income, high average level of education county, so may be incorrect in my hopeful assumption that similar events are occurring in most US counties.

Actually, that's true. Or well, I live in Mexico, I know, but I remember seeing an abortion video on Biology class or something of the sort... I didn't like it...

 

I think it is not something good to make students see videos of that... and this includes another medical procedures that are kinda "gory"... even if they are heart transplants or life saving procedures... but well...

[goku]

Now you're against a woman's right to be naked?

only in public :hihi:

[goku]

I think qoku expresses the view held by the majority of protestant Christian that masturbation and contraception do not involve the destruction of a human being, but that abortion does.

yep, but, i'm a baptist

[goku]

Those who believe that an ovum penetrated by a sperm is a full-fledged human are opposed to any of *their* tax dollars being spent on abortions or even distribution of contraceptives of any kind

tax dollars for abortions i am against, tax dollars for contraceptives no problem :hihi:

[HydrogenBond]

This is going to sound chauvanistic, but a positive way to look at abortion is that it provides a way out for loose men who like to date loose women. Loose women and men are not designed for marriage but for recreation. Abortion allows the women to get back into the game ,at a much faster rate, rather than be forced to hook a recreational guy into a marriage that is bound to fail.

[rockytriton]

I don't think anyone is saying they support abortions paid for by your taxes. If someone can't afford an abortion, and they are about to have a crack baby in the slums, I would gladly fork over the cash myself. I would consider it an investment, I would be paying much more in taxes later in life to pay for his medical bills or even for his court fees and prison stays.

[Buffy]

...tax dollars for contraceptives no problem :confused:

Just so you know, your government is very active in witholding funding from any organization that distributes contraceptives, talks about them or even mentions abortion as a possibility, not just those that actually perform abortions. The only exception is for organizations that exclusively councel abstinence....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Drip Curl Magic]

There are plenty of people out there who don't want kids... and if they didn't have the option of getting an abortion, there would definately be a rise in the number of babys that end up in dumpsters and such. It's sad, but lots of people really don't care for the beauty of reproduction.