Abortion

[Beetle Bailey]

Whether or not I am male or female is irrelavent to the fact that one human being's right to not be inconvenienced does not outweigh another human being's very right to live.

Talk about think logic. Suggesting that I have no place in the discussion based on no more than my sex is some of the shallowest reasoning that I have heard to date and you followed it up with an equally meager line of drivel.

Since half of the children who are being killed by their mothers are male and the vast majority of the females would not grow up and commit suicide because their mothers didn't do the job for them I have every possible right to argue on their behalf.

Now can you explain why a woman's invented right to not be inconvenienced outweighs her child's very real right to live? Or is empty rhetoric all you have to offer?

The fact that you will never be faced with making that choice is entirely relavent. Since you don't really face the consequences of an unwanted birth, it's easy to reduce it to a purely academic argument. It's funny to watch people pretend to be concerned about human life. Particularly when it's all obviously in the context of their own social/religious/political ideology. Funny how they don't seem to be able to muster nearly as much concern for people who have already been born.

 

[palerider]

But it is the woman's body who is involved and she who has to carry it. I believe it is her decision to make because of that. Because you do not share that point of view does not make my line of logic faulty.

Your logic is faulty because one's right to not be inconvienienced does not outweigh another's right to live.

 

[palerider]

The fact that you will never be faced with making that choice is entirely relavent. Since you don't really face the consequences of an unwanted birth, it's easy to reduce it to a purely academic argument. It's funny to watch people pretend to be concerned about human life. Particularly when it's all obviously in the context of their own social/religious/political ideology. Funny how they don't seem to be able to muster nearly as much concern for people who have already been born.

Since you have no idea what I think with regard to people who are already born, your statement is pointless.

Can you or can you not explain the reasoning by which you believe one's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another's right to live. Explain it in such a way so that it applies equally to all human beings or face up to your very shallow reasoning.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Your logic is faulty because one's right to not be inconvienienced does not outweigh another's right to live.

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

Should the father have some input? Certainly but the ultimate decision should still be between the woman and the doctor.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Since you have no idea what I think with regard to people who are already born, your statement is pointless.

Can you or can you not explain the reasoning by which you believe one's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another's right to live. Explain it in such a way so that it applies equally to all human beings or face up to your very shallow reasoning.

See what I mean? Nothing but an academic argument. Nothing but contempt for women. So detached from life's little inconvenient realities. Sounds like someone who hasn't lived life. Never had to face any hard decisions. That must be why it's so easy to speak in theoretical terms. What choice do you have?

 

[top gun]

palerider;14753]We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.

But we are talking about a womens body. You know the Catholic church believes even taking birth control pills is taking life. The truth is what we are talking about are developing cells that if left to term could become sustainable human life. Could die off as a miscarriage. Could have terrible medical issues causing much pain and suffering before inevitable death. Many things "could" happen.

I think the truth is once you're confronted with the fact that it is a woman's body in control of this... and you have zero power over it... you become hostile to the obvious. Let the woman decide.

So you support killing human beings for no better reason than convenience without consequence because "things" aren't always perfect? Were you born into a perfect family, with perfect finances, with a perfect place for you?

Those are your words my friend I never said any such thing.I said it's a personal decision that should be considered very seriously by the person involved. There could well be medical reasons pertaining to the fetus or for the woman. There could be any number of reasons and I think you are aware of that. I'm presuming you are a man like me and thusly I know that you don't know the physiological effects of being in this situation. I think I may have said this before... Everyone talks a good fight.

In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.

See that's what I had hoped you would say. You just stepped in it my friend because it's the same thing. The reasoning behind the "murder" as you put it does not in fact vary do to these circumstances at all. For your position to be consistent you would have to say it's God's will let whoever has to die, die. You can't be the orbiter of life & death. What your position does is it makes you "feel" you are being gallant when the choice is presented in a certain way. But death is death... killing is killing if not by complete and utter accident. Look at it you'll see what your mind just tried to spin.

An opinion that is not supported by fact is worthless. When our lives begin is an inarguable today as a result of scientific advances as an argume that the world is flat.

But the "fact" has been proven my friend and the Supreme Court has upheld it for decades. Even many other countries have accepted the practice since the United States has. I think the difference is the world is evolving and you might prefer the middle ages.

And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?

Who's hiding. I'm openly telling you you are wrong.

If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

There you go! Now you're getting the idea.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Interesting concept but I think that analogy actually applies much more to your own position. You want to be the slave master and dictate what a woman must do to something in her own body that is TOTALLY under her control. If she does not do as you have chosen you want to punish her. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that.

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?

Of course not. I judge everything on an individual basis. I do agree that if you don't like those things you mentioned you shouldn't do them because in doing so you set a bad example. Much like I would not expect you to have an abortion (if that were possible) because you feel strongly against it. And I don't think anyone should force one on you. In the same way I don't think you should force your opinion and interpretations on the majority of woman out there that disagree with you. I believe the courts have decided this matter correctly.

 

[Coyote]

We are not talking about the woman's body. She is not the one being killed. And we are not talking about a "thing" inside of the woman's body, we are talking about a human being. If you can't even bring yourself to discuss the topic in real terms and must hide behind vague phrases like "her body" and "anything" you really aren't prepared for this discussion.

Unless you can remove the embryo form the woman's body and raise it in another environment you can not avoid talking about her body and her rights pertaining to it. It's a package deal here.

In the case of conjoined twins, if an organ is shared and not strong enough to support both, then an effort is made to save one at the expense of the other. If, by this example, you are saying that you only support abortion when the mother's life is in danger and by default the child's life as well and only one can be saved, then I am with you. The mother has the right to protect her life and shouldn't have to share her body if it is going to kill her exactly as the conjoined twin who has the organ that isn't strong enough to support both children has the right to not share if it is going to kill him.

What right? From where? The twins together will survive - maybe not as long as one that is seperated - yet if seperated one will surely die. Someone is making a decision here to kill it.

And if the child is not viable, it is miscarried. If it is viable, it continues to live until it dies of natural causes or someone kills it. Again, hiding behind vague expressions like "viable" doesn't strengthen your position in this discussion. A human in early development requires a certain environment to live. Removing him or her from that environment will cause death, but has nothing to do with viability. You require a certain environment. If you were removed from that environment and put 1000 feet deep in the ocean or in the vaccum of space without protection, you would die. Does that mean that you weren't viable or that someone killed you by removing you from the environment you required to live?

We're talking about an environment that is someone elses body - that belongs to someone else.

If I don't like abortions then I shouldn't have one. Just like a bumper sticker.

Tell me, if you had lived a hundred years ago, would you have had a bumper sticker on your wagon that said:

If you don't like slavery, then don't own one?

Is that how you justify everything in your life? If you don't like arson, then don't set fires? If you don't like wife beating, then don't beat your wife? If you don't like child abuse, then don't abuse your children? You think that if we don't like certain things, we should just not do them and laws that protect us really aren't necessary?

The difference here though - is you are talking about rights pertaining to only one entity. Here you have competing rights.

 

[Coyote]

Again I am not distancing myself from my own words. I made a statement to point out that from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that most people I know who oppose abortion also oppose helping children out once they are born. My position was that if abortion is to be outlawed then society needs to ensure that all children need to be taken care of and offered a basic, decent standard of life. Caring should not stop after birth. Is that clear enough?

That is also the issue I have with the anti-abortion movement. Many of them lose interest once the child is born. What happens to those children? What support is there for parents? What support for parents carrying disabled children (adoption is unlikely)....what happens and does anyone care? I never see protesters lined up marching along with signs saying "stop child abuse", "adopt a crack baby" etc.

 

[Coyote]

Now can you explain why a woman's invented right to not be inconvenienced outweighs her child's very real right to live? Or is empty rhetoric all you have to offer?

That is a false statement. The issue is not an "invented right to not be inconvenienced" - it's the very real right to be able to control choices affecting her body.

 

[Coyote]

Well why else would you have an abortion if not for convenience?

But the thing that I'm more interested in is why you believe that the decision is to be made solely between the woman and the doctor? Shouldn't the father have some say?

There are a lot of reasons beyond "convenience".

Should the father have some say? If it's a married couple, yes. Otherwise I think the female has the stronger rights - she is the one that will have carry it to term, and raise it, and suffer the financial burden and any health costs associated with it. In this day and age - the man's ability to take responsibility is still largely voluntary. He could start out wanting the baby, change his mind and disappear and by then, it is too late to terminate.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

There are a lot of reasons beyond "convenience".

Like what? Other than sheer barbarity, I can't think of any reasons aside from its future potential inconvenience.

Should the father have some say? If it's a married couple, yes. Otherwise I think the female has the stronger rights - she is the one that will have carry it to term, and raise it, and suffer the financial burden and any health costs associated with it. In this day and age - the man's ability to take responsibility is still largely voluntary. He could start out wanting the baby, change his mind and disappear and by then, it is too late to terminate.

But the man is always the one who is financially responsible for the child.

 

[Coyote]

Like what? Other than sheer barbarity, I can't think of any reasons aside from its future potential inconvenience.

Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

Affordability - if you don't have insurance, you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section. These figures do not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems, neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early. $200,000 is not an "inconvenience" considering a frequent reason for choosing abortion is the loss of job and income.

If the mother is young - a teenager, she is little more then a child herself. Pregnant teens are more at risk for certain health problems, such as high blood pressure or anemia. They also are more likely to go into labor too early. Abortion could be the better choice. Again, it's only an "inconvenience" if YOU don't have to bear the burden.

But the man is always the one who is financially responsible for the child.

Not necessarily.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

How the unborn was conceived has nothing to do with the abortion, but I'll give you this. In cases of rape and incest, I do tend to favor allowing the woman to have the abortion.

Affordability - if you don't have insurance, you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section. These figures do not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems, neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early. $200,000 is not an "inconvenience" considering a frequent reason for choosing abortion is the loss of job and income.

If the mother is young - a teenager, she is little more then a child herself. Pregnant teens are more at risk for certain health problems, such as high blood pressure or anemia. They also are more likely to go into labor too early. Abortion could be the better choice. Again, it's only an "inconvenience" if YOU don't have to bear the burden.

These two are examples of an inconvenience.