'08 Results

[Kulaf]

I think it's just a ridiculous attempt at "Devil's Advocate", I'm not even sure you're honestly playing it. I don't believe the majority of abortions are people that are using it as "birth control". They are typically accidents. Most doctor's won't perform a tubal ligation on women too young, or without health insurance so it's hardly an option and those are the people I'm concerned about. The people I am concerned about having this right are those that end up pregnant through no reckless, selfish act of their own. Women raped or in abusive relationships, poor women without health insurance, young teens without access to birth control, women that are in a situation that had very little to do with their own choices.

Government funding. Go to the religious right and offer them federally funded vasectomys and tubals in exchange for outlawing abortion except in cases of special circumstance. My guess is they would jump at it.

[Partha]

Don't think I said "readily" available......nope.....I didn't. Thanks for playing though.

Cowardly much?

If you want to start your own advocacy......play with someone else chuckles.

You have improved your skill in Dodge! (255)

[Harlowe]

No they wouldn't. "Special circumstance" is meaningless to them. It's black and white to them.

[wende darling]

I think it's just a ridiculous attempt at "Devil's Advocate", I'm not even sure you're honestly playing it. I don't believe the majority of abortions are people that are using it as "birth control". They are typically accidents. Most doctor's won't perform a tubal ligation on women too young, or without health insurance so it's hardly an option and those are the people I'm concerned about. The people I am concerned about having this right are those that end up pregnant through no reckless, selfish act of their own. Women raped or in abusive relationships, poor women without health insurance, young teens without access to birth control, women that are in a situation that had very little to do with their own choices.

Government funding. Go to the religious right and offer them federally funded vasectomys and tubals in exchange for outlawing abortion except in cases of special circumstance. My guess is they would jump at it.

That's not even logical. Everything is a "special circumstance" depending on how you look at it. Most doctors will not perform a tubal ligation on a woman under the age of 25 and even then they often won't do it if the woman has fewer than 3 children. Give all the government funding that you want but it won't cover a large portion of women who have abortions. Many of them are college students who had an "oops". Either they missed a pill or there was a lapse in judgement or whatever. They realize that while they are in no position to parent now, they do want children in the future. So now what? Shit, I guess she should have had her tubes tied at 18 years old. That girl, if determined enough to not have a baby, will still find a doctor to perform an abortion. It just may be that the doctor she finds is an unlicensed quack who doesn't bother to sterilize his instruments in between patients. Don't think for one second that the lack of legality will cause a major decline in the number of abortions. The only thing that will result is that girls will die and so will the fetus along with them. You've managed to lose two lives in the attempt to save one.

People argue left and right about what is considered a special circumstance. I have a friend who got pregnant a few years ago. She was thrilled. She couldn't wait to have the baby. About 5 months into the pregnancy she learned that the baby's brain had not developed. She would not live, period. Rather than going through the final months of the pregnancy she opted to induce labor. That is technically considered an abortion because the baby was not old enough to survive on her own. It was the hardest thing my friend has ever done in her life. She gave birth, she held the baby, she named her. Some people in the "pro-life" camp still consider her a murderer. It would not have been considered special because A) she wasn't raped, B) her life was not at risk if the pregnancy continued, and C) the baby's life wasn't at risk if the pregnancy continued. Even still, there is not a good, logical reason for her to have continued the pregnancy.

[Alluveal]

Wende wrote:

And yet, the same people voting against abortion are voting for the war...

and

Those same "pro-life" voters have no trouble voting for the death sentence even though not only has prison been proven not to be a deterent from crime (but I have no better idea for detering criminals so I'll leave that one alone) but also, innocent people have been killed.

Life isn't sacred across the board to this crowd. But, when it comes to revenge, well . . . that's perfectly ok.


Embar wrote:

Choosing to to support abortion for others even if you don't choose it for yourself, means you are pro-abortion.

No, you are supporting the freedom to make that choice. Though, I will say that most abortions are not about "choice of the body" but rather choices made for other reasons: career, not ready for kids, too selfish, just not interested in being a parent. I've only heard one woman say she's not into kids because it would wreak havoc on her body. She also had her tubes tied.

But, I never really tossed it up to "it's my body, my choice." The choice is rarely about the body. I prefer to call it what it is on that note.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The choice, Allu, is to kill for convenience, or not kill for convenience. That's the "choice".

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The choice, Allu, is to kill for convenience, or not kill for convenience. That's the "choice".

It's also convenient to have a moral code that you only apply selectively.

[Harlowe]

The choice, Allu, is to kill for convenience, or not kill for convenience. That's the "choice".

It's also convenient to have a moral code that you only apply selectively.

You nailed it.

[Ddrak]

The choice, Allu, is to kill for convenience, or not kill for convenience. That's the "choice".

It depends on how you define "killing". If it is killing to refuse someone else something that you have, which necessarily results in their death then I'll agree. However, I believe that just because I have something that someone else needs to live doesn't give me the *legal* imperative to part with it. If someone is dying in an emergency room that only a $100k operation in some Baltimore hospital can fix then I don't believe the government should take $100k from my bank account to pay for it under the threat of jail. In the same way, if I have the means for a baby to survive then the government shouldn't force me to provide it despite there being a clear moral imperative there in almost all cases.

Dd

[Alluveal]

The choice, Allu, is to kill for convenience, or not kill for convenience. That's the "choice".

A choice requires more than just one option.

1. abortion
2. adoption
3. keep baby

There ya go.

[Kulaf]

How about.....stop fucking.

[Partha]

Why, it's so simple! Next time a rape victim get pregnant, we'll simply blame them for fucking!

[Freecare Spiritwise]

How about.....stop fucking.

Too easy. You could also prevent all traffic fatalites by not driving, and all shooting deaths by not shooting.

Utopia is just a few inactions away

[Select]

How about.....stop fucking.

You're doing really badly in this thread. I expect this from Fallakin.

[Rsak]

Ddrak,

Missing the target. You don't have to embrace it as a personal choice to also embrace the notion that your own morality shouldn't interfere with someone else's ability to choose for themselves.

By that same argument, being pro-freedom of religion means you're anti-christian?

I definitely agree with this statement on the matter of Abortion, but honestly I would extend it to the issue of Stem Cell Research as well. Regardless of the medical benifits, I have a problem with the government forcing tax payers to support the killing of embryos which they find morally and legally reprehensible.

[Arathena]

I think it's just a ridiculous attempt at "Devil's Advocate", I'm not even sure you're honestly playing it. I don't believe the majority of abortions are people that are using it as "birth control". They are typically accidents. Most doctor's won't perform a tubal ligation on women too young, or without health insurance so it's hardly an option and those are the people I'm concerned about. The people I am concerned about having this right are those that end up pregnant through no reckless, selfish act of their own. Women raped or in abusive relationships, poor women without health insurance, young teens without access to birth control, women that are in a situation that had very little to do with their own choices.

Government funding. Go to the religious right and offer them federally funded vasectomys and tubals in exchange for outlawing abortion except in cases of special circumstance. My guess is they would jump at it.

No. All birth control is "sin". The sane religious right will tell you that pregnancy is a consequence of fucking, so don't fuck unless you want kids, the crazy parts of the religious right will tell you that a woman isn't worth anything unless she gives her husband 10+ children.

[Harlowe]

Another form of hypocrisy you see from people of this mindset or this group regarding the issue of abortion is their lack of moral outrage regarding fertility clinics or fertility therapy. What about all those frozen embryos that will never see a womb, not to mention the many that are discarded, the lives at various stages stuck in stasis or discarded. I don't see people threatening nor rallying outside those, nor the patients demonized over the process when more often then not, there are extra, unused embryos. It's all about what someone "wants" it's all about "choice". This isn't life nor death. They could adopt or just accept they can not have children. It's a selfish choice.

In fact, if memory serves, fertility clinics are responsible for more potential lives going into the waste bin then abortions.

[Ddrak]

Regardless of the medical benifits, I have a problem with the government forcing tax payers to support the killing of embryos which they find morally and legally reprehensible.

I don't. Well over half of Americans thought the war in Iraq was morally and legally reprehensible and yet none actually debated the government's ability to force the taxpayers to foot the bill. Same with Gitmo. Same with all sorts of black ops the CIA undertakes. If the government had to justify every cent spent by every taxpayer against that taxpayer's own moral judgements then it would stall into complete inaction, which is why taxes exist and are controlled by a representative system instead of an anarchic direct donation.

In fact, if memory serves, fertility clinics are responsible for more potential lives going into the waste bin then abortions.

Far, far more (each IVF attempt creates 24 embryos and kills 21). Fertility clinics are the source for the stem cells people debate about and the *only* other option for those embryos is a death without meaning. What the anti-stem-cell lobby doesn't want you to know is the embryos are killed anyway and the choice is actually "Do you kill the embryo while giving science a chance to save others, or do you kill the embryo and deny it that chance".

The vast majority of the anti-stem-cell crowd are simply ignorant of their Luddite position.

Dd

[Ddrak]

Note: Most (all?) Christian denominations actually oppose IVF for a number of reasons, but tend to not make a big deal out of it because it's pretty awful publicity. They are much more comfortable picketing and demonizing abortions despite IVF being far, far higher on the "dead baby" scale.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Choosing to enlist in the military means you support war, because the military exists to enact war. Therefore you are pro-war.

Choosing to buy a gun for self-defense means you support killing someone in defense, because guns bought for self-defense imply using the gun (deadly force) in the act of self defense. Therefore you are pro-homicide.

Choosing to to support abortion for others even if you don't choose it for yourself, means you are pro-abortion.

You can dance around the nuances all you like, but in the end, embrace your "choice", and live with it. Murder of an innocent is murder of an innocent. Compounded against that is the murder for convenience. Abortions occur because the the human life isn't "convienient" for the mother. That's fucking abhorrent.

In your "war" analogy, Harlowe.. no one is specifically targeting innocents. Deaths happen in a war, both intended and unintended. The unintended deaths are tragic, to be sure. But at least those people aren't targeted for death. They just happen. You can wail and moan against that all you want, but I don't see you pushing for the outlaw of highways and cars. They cause more deaths here than many other things, and they are just as unintentional as collateral deaths in a war.

However it helps some people sleep at night when they feed themselves with rationalizations, which are used very effectively as a bulwark against honesty and truth.

I'm not on a high horse. And I suggest you get off yours and look at the truth of the matter. Your argument is indefensible. And it's vacuous. And it's morally bankrupt.

You'd be better off saying (as some others here have) that a human being in its fetal stage has no rights to life. Has no rights whatsoever.

Do you have sufficient vacuum in your morality to make that statement?

An unwanted pregnancy is pretty inconvenient. A mugging, burglary, home invasion, etc is pretty inconvenient as well. Why do you get to conveniently kill the fucker who is climbing out your window with your X-Box but another woman is not allowed to terminate a pregnancy that will cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next 18 plus years? If someone is going to do you harm do their motivations matter? As a citizen you would shoot a burglar who was breaking in to your home. As a soldier you would shoot another soldier who was defending his own home. That Somali or Iraqi certainly was not personally going to come to the US to do you or your loved ones harm. You can engage in hypocrisy and moral relativism just as much as anyone else.