Abortion

[Coyote]

Right. Some have a far less than 12 in 100,000 chance of injury or death while none have a much higher than 17 in 100,000 chance.

It doesn't matter in the end...if you engage in something that carries the risk of mortality, shouldn't you have a choice as to whether you wish to engage in it?

No. A threat doesn't give you any right to take action. The threat much be followed by action before you can legally kill in self defense. And unborns don't hold anyone hostage. It is they who are being held since they are where they are through no fault of their own and are powerless to do anything about it.

If you look at it that way, they are both being held hostage - the mother to be, and the unborn. In one - she is powerless to eject a foreign body using her own whether she is willing or not, in the other - it is powerless to do anything about it. Who has greater rights? You inisist on calling it an inconveniance. Is having a child a matter of "convenience"?

I want to see some evidence that suggests that a million women a year walk into abortion clinics and demand an abortion because they aren't prepared to accept a 12 in 100,000 chance of injury or death.

It doesn't matter. What matters it is their bodies and no one has any right over someone else's body.

She, like the child is not guilty of anyting. There is a guilty party and that party shoud bear the responsibility of his actions. You seem eager to relieve him of the responsibility and demand punishment for the only one who is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt.

No, I do not absolve him of any responsibility but I question exactly how he can be forced to bear responsibility? Would you want the rapist father of your child involved in your life in any way shape or form? Is he going to be able to provide the means to care or pay for a child? Will she be able to keep her job - not all jobs provide maternal leave especially if you are on the low end of the wage scale to begin with.

We are in none of those countries.

That's irrelevant. That is what it could look for poor women, like if it became illegal.

Because the "risk" that you keep harping on isn't really a risk at all. Practically everyting you do in your day to day life carries more risk. A whole class of human beings is being subjected to being killed for any or no reason.

And a whole class of human beings has virtually unconditional rights over another human beings body whether she wants them or not and whether they were invited or not.

 

[Coyote]

Babies are cute, babies are lovable, babies are helpless and totally dependent. Everyone hates the thought of killing a baby.
The arguments that are against abortion beg the question for me: Why do the same people who are against abortion of a cute little baby, have no apparent responsibility for the hapless victims of poverty once they are adults? What of the street people who die from exposure each Winter in the major cities? There is no rush for legislation that would ease their suffering. It is apparent that all lives are not equal...everyone is concerned if victim is
cute.

Addendum: As a male I am very thankful that I do not have to endure the minor inconvenience of passing something the size of a bowling ball through my pelvis with the accompanying, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, diabetes, etc., etc. Why is it that I never hear a woman who has had a baby describe the experience as an: "inconvenience"? And to the twelve year old pregnant girl: Do not complain, if it was consensual.

Another good point...children having children. Do you blame the child for not having the maturity of an adult? The effects of pregnancy on a child's body are much harsher than an adults.

In addtion to diabetes add stroke. I knew of someone who died giving childbirth, she had a massive stroke. The baby survived, the father was shattered, they had only been married a few years.

 

[r0beph]

The concept of hypocrisy is seemingly non existent to you , palerider. It's almost disgusting. You claim this unborn fetus, not even fully developed, is more sacred than a person who will forever remember the torture you support. Your support of torture in the torture thread shows a lack of empathy that is paradoxical when attempting to correlate your postings here. A child has no guilt yet is punished is your quip, yet a prisoner who will admit nothing may very well be guiltless, yet you harangue torture as a method of extracting real or imagined guilt. Is this so different in your mind? While this expostulation could be reversed upon me in contra-argument, but I don't feel a fetus of 1st or 2nd trimester is developed enough to relate to a full grown man or woman. You on the flip side DO believe this which brings your abstruse reasoning into question. I will never understand how you can justify such speech towards arguable "crime" yet totally attempt to absolve guilt to an obvious crime against humanity. You're on a rocking horse that rocks side to side my friend. I'm thoroughly confused. The irony is confounding.

/I don't typically like the idea of third trimester abortions, however cases can be made with little requirement to me concerning rape/danger to mothers life/atypical pregnancies etc.

 

[palerider]

Babies are cute, babies are lovable, babies are helpless and totally dependent. Everyone hates the thought of killing a baby.
The arguments that are against abortion beg the question for me: Why do the same people who are against abortion of a cute little baby, have no apparent responsibility for the hapless victims of poverty once they are adults? What of the street people who die from exposure each Winter in the major cities? There is no rush for legislation that would ease their suffering. It is apparent that all lives are not equal...everyone is concerned if victim is
cute.

Is it your argument that it is better to kill a human being than to take the chance that they "might" grow up to be unloved and unhappy?

 

[palerider]

The concept of hypocrisy is seemingly non existent to you , palerider. It's almost disgusting.

What is disgusting is your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You might apply the word to yourself, but not me (not with any degree of accuracy anyway). As I said in the torture thread, there are certain situations in which I could support the use of torture, not that I support torture as a general practice and the very same is true of abortion. There are a couple of situations in which I believe that a woman has the right to kill her child. If that child is threatening her life, or long term health, then she has the right to kill it even if it isn't harming her with intent.

 

[r0beph]

Torture is only applied in situations where information is ASSUMED to be had. The problem is the ASSUMED portion of the statement. It's quite difficult to pin down the exact truth when you don't know it. The nature of it is that if you don't know the truth then you don't know the amount of truth contained. It's like stabbing a can full of liquid in hopes of finding wine, only to find it contains the contents of the lower region of a port-o-john. The equation stands firm. And I fully stand by what I say.

 

[top gun]

Babies are cute, babies are lovable, babies are helpless and totally dependent. Everyone hates the thought of killing a baby.
The arguments that are against abortion beg the question for me: Why do the same people who are against abortion of a cute little baby, have no apparent responsibility for the hapless victims of poverty once they are adults? What of the street people who die from exposure each Winter in the major cities? There is no rush for legislation that would ease their suffering. It is apparent that all lives are not equal...everyone is concerned if victim is
cute.

Addendum: As a male I am very thankful that I do not have to endure the minor inconvenience of passing something the size of a bowling ball through my pelvis with the accompanying, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, diabetes, etc., etc. Why is it that I never hear a woman who has had a baby describe the experience as an: "inconvenience"? And to the twelve year old pregnant girl: Do not complain, if it was consensual.

Excellent point dahermit.

I'll take it one step further. Why is it that those hard Right no-choice advocates are also almost always against increasing funding for the child/family social services?

They want to force the poor to carry a baby to term instead of terminating the pregnancy in the early stages and then they say... Fend for yourself. You made your bed now lay in it. So now the child they forced on this mother suffers extreme poverty. Maybe even a family suffering alcohol and drug addiction. But the no-choice advocates always know what's best for others????????

Unintentional pregnancy is going to happen. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's been happening forever and abortions have been happening forever. The only distinction now is do we go draconian and force women back to the back alley doctors or throwing themselves down the steps or taking massive quantities of drugs to miscarry.

Please everyone... never let that day come again!

 

[palerider]

Torture is only applied in situations where information is ASSUMED to be had. The problem is the ASSUMED portion of the statement. It's quite difficult to pin down the exact truth when you don't know it. The nature of it is that if you don't know the truth then you don't know the amount of truth contained. It's like stabbing a can full of liquid in hopes of finding wine, only to find it contains the contents of the lower region of a port-o-john. The equation stands firm. And I fully stand by what I say.

Stand by it all you like. Stalin died thinking that he was the savior of russia. People stand by wrong ideas all the time.

 

[palerider]

Excellent point dahermit.

I'll take it one step further. Why is it that those hard Right no-choice advocates are also almost always against increasing funding for the child/family social services?

They want to force the poor to carry a baby to term instead of terminating the pregnancy in the early stages and then they say... Fend for yourself. You made your bed now lay in it. So now the child they forced on this mother suffers extreme poverty. Maybe even a family suffering alcohol and drug addiction. But the no-choice advocates always know what's best for others????????

Unintentional pregnancy is going to happen. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's been happening forever and abortions have been happening forever. The only distinction now is do we go draconian and force women back to the back alley doctors or throwing themselves down the steps or taking massive quantities of drugs to miscarry.

Please everyone... never let that day come again!

So you favor killing those who "might" grow up poor, or unhappy as well? Tell me, how do you feel about going around and killing those that we know for sure are unwanted, unloved, and unhappy. Would they be better off if we authorized killing them for any reason at all?

 

[dahermit]

Is it your argument that it is better to kill a human being than to take the chance that they "might" grow up to be unloved and unhappy?

No, my point is that there may be an emotional aspect to the argument. Also, there is not a chance they might grow up to be unloved and unhappy, but there is a certainty that many adults, who escape being aborted, do grow up to live an absolutely miserable life sans any concern they would enjoy from those who pat themselves on the back for being compassionate enough to protect them from an abortion. Where is the same consideration for the adult condition?

 

[palerider]

No, my point is that there may be an emotional aspect to the argument. Also, there is not a chance they might grow up to be unloved and unhappy, but there is a certainty that many adults, who escape being aborted, do grow up to live an absolutely miserable life sans any concern they would enjoy from those who pat themselves on the back for being compassionate enough to protect them from an abortion. Where is the same consideration for the adult condition?

You are making an emotional appeal that is meaningless. You are saying that because you "believe" that I don't do anything for people who are less fortunate than I am (you are completely wrong by the way) that somehow that makes killing unborns ok.

I don't know you, and what happens to you or those you care about has little to no effect on me and mine, but that doesn't mean that I am fine with your human right to live being ignored or disregarded.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are making an emotional appeal that is meaningless. You are saying that because you "believe" that I don't do anything for people who are less fortunate than I am (you are completely wrong by the way) that somehow that makes killing unborns ok.

I don't know you, and what happens to you or those you care about has little to no effect on me and mine, but that doesn't mean that I am fine with your human right to live being ignored or disregarded.

So, to save hundreds or thousands of lives would you abort the babies of suspected terrorists by making them watch you gut their wives with a machete--assuming of course that you had GOOD evidence that they had the information? It has been demonstrated to be more effective to hurt the loved ones of the suspect than the suspect himself when torturing highly motivated people. The beauty of the technique is that even if it doesn't work, you still have the undamaged suspect that you can then go to work on. C'mon, Pale, let's have an answer, thousands or millions of lives are at stake, are you going to suddenly get "self-righteous" on us and NOT do whatever it takes to get the information?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Excellent point dahermit.

I'll take it one step further. Why is it that those hard Right no-choice advocates are also almost always against increasing funding for the child/family social services?

They want to force the poor to carry a baby to term instead of terminating the pregnancy in the early stages and then they say... Fend for yourself. You made your bed now lay in it. So now the child they forced on this mother suffers extreme poverty. Maybe even a family suffering alcohol and drug addiction. But the no-choice advocates always know what's best for others????????

Unintentional pregnancy is going to happen. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's been happening forever and abortions have been happening forever. The only distinction now is do we go draconian and force women back to the back alley doctors or throwing themselves down the steps or taking massive quantities of drugs to miscarry.

Please everyone... never let that day come again!

Ronald Reagan explained the reasoning through his philosophy: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

 

[palerider]

So, to save hundreds or thousands of lives would you abort the babies of suspected terrorists by making them watch you gut their wives with a machete--assuming of course that you had GOOD evidence that they had the information? It has been demonstrated to be more effective to hurt the loved ones of the suspect than the suspect himself when torturing highly motivated people. The beauty of the technique is that even if it doesn't work, you still have the undamaged suspect that you can then go to work on. C'mon, Pale, let's have an answer, thousands or millions of lives are at stake, are you going to suddenly get "self-righteous" on us and NOT do whatever it takes to get the information?

When exactly, did I ever suggest torturing the friends and family of suspected terrorists? Talk about a fabricated attack.

Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

 

[steveox]

I like to see ROE vs Wade overturned.