Abortion debate (older thread)

[toms]

Although in most modern countries religion is supposed to be seperate from government and laws... those same government and laws are usually based on common moral positions.

 

Most people, at least historically, based many of their moral positions on their religion.

 

Therefore many, if not all, laws in the US, UK etc are based indirectly on christianity and its morals.

 

I'm not particularly christian anymore, but i was brought up by mildly christian parents, who were brought up in turn by christian parents... so it is only natural that a lot of my views and morals have been affected by christianity. Even if i have later rejected some of those views after giving them some thought.

 

As for a freedom of speech issue, i think you might have a point there.

 

As a slightly relevant aside: there was a poll/programme in the UK recently about the Ten Commandments and whether they were still relevant today. Only 3 or so of the originals made it into the new top ten... and the number one commandment voted for today was "Treat others as you would with to be treated yourself". Which i suspect is a common viewpoint among athiests/agnostics. When it comes to abortion i guess it depends on whether you want the baby to be treated as you were or the mother.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Hitler Card

 

Someone needs to make a pic for that:p.

I know SkinWalker made one, too, but I had a shot at it myself:

Drag this link to your address bar and curse GeoCities;).

 

Now, please explain to me how they can fine you $500 just because you don't agree with Christian values of anti-abortion.

 

This law is unconstitutional in at least two ways. Last time I checked there WAS freedom of speech in America, but it seems to be pretty much non-existant when it comes to speaking against Christian laws.

Good law! Let's fine people who promote Islam and other non-Christian religions too! We'll have the masses flock to the Churches in no time:D!

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by TK-8252

Last time I checked there WAS freedom of speech in America

 

Really? Well, I'll be damned...

 

--------------------------------

 

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The society that gradually constricts its grasp on public debate has begun a rapid slide towards despotism. [...] Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

 

- Commissioner Pravin Lal"

 

- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, Tech description

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

I said my stance on the issue then someone's gonna turn it into a debate by arguing against it, that's how a debate gos.-_-

 

But your stance has already been argued, and defeated. So you're only repeating an invalid argument, which is not how you conduct a logical debate. To avoid this repetition, you should read the thread and get everything out of it as possible. Otherwise, we're all just repeating the same debate over and over, which gets really pointless.

[ET Warrior]

In response to your other thread, you said that not all homosexual would adopt, why couldn't heteros do it.

 

The answer is, of course nto all of them weill, not all Heterosexual couples adopt. But there are more orphans than there are people who want them, why don't we increase the pool of available homes instead of restricting it?

[Mike Windu]

Yes, do tell us why you want to ADD to the already huge number of children in group homes, but at the same time would deny a large number of homes to said children?

 

Are they going to become infected with homosexuality?

[SkinWalker]

Granted, there's 10 pages, Hidden One, but I think if you took at least some time to at least skim the thread... perhaps skipping the shortest posts and reading some of the more lengthy ones, you might have something more to add.

 

This thread was originally locked because it degenerated to a bit of redundancy. It was re-opened at request of a member that wanted to add something new.

 

Simply posting, "its wrong - I'm against it" really amounts to spam, particularly when you state you aren't willing to read the work that others have done on both sides of the issue.

 

We welcome debate and discussion, but at least try to put some thoughts in it.

 

EDIT: There were several posts that were deleted. This is a rather long thread, and from here on out, I'll be rather harsh on spam or posts that don't add to the discussion. Nothing personal, but I think that anyone that spends the time and effort needed to even skim this thread, deserves to see discussion that is substantive.

 

If I get the chance, I'll go back and mark the tops of posts on both sides of the issue that those new to the thread might want to read.

 

In the mean time, lets add news bits and opinions based on them that keep the thread current and discussion interesting.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by Mike Windu

ADD to the already huge number of children in group homes, but at the same time would deny a large number of homes to said children?

Or, what about girls already in group homes that face the problems of being a parent as well as the state which will have to provide services for the kid-with-a-kid?

 

The girl fights back after the DCF steps in and a judge grants a temporary injunction to block the abortion.

 

By Associated Press

Published April 28, 2005

 

WEST PALM BEACH - The state's social services agency went to court to block a 13-year-old girl who is living in a state shelter from having an abortion, and the girl wants to challenge the judge's decision.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency appeal on Wednesday asking a judge to overturn the ruling that could essentially force the girl to become a mother, said Howard Simon, Florida's ACLU executive director.

 

The girl, called L.G. in court documents and described as a longtime state ward, learned she was pregnant two weeks ago, and she was to have an abortion Tuesday. But the state Department of Children and Families asked a Palm Beach County juvenile judge Tuesday morning to block the abortion.

 

The agency argued that L.G., who is 131/2 weeks pregnant, was too young and immature to make an informed medical decision.

 

A judge granted a temporary injunction to block the abortion and ordered a psychological evaluation for L.G.

 

L.G.'s appeal says Florida law as it now stands protects a minor's right to decide whether to get an abortion.

 

In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law requiring parents to be notified if a minor daughter seeks an abortion.

 

Florida's high court also cited state privacy rights in 1989 when it tossed out a law requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion.

 

No details on L.G.'s parents or family history were available.

 

"DCF and the circuit court have instituted a process whereby the state will make a decision for L.G. based upon its own evaluation of her best interest. This it cannot do," the appeal said.

 

Department spokeswoman Marilyn Munoz said state law prohibits the department from consenting to an abortion for a minor in any instance.

 

"If a child in our care requests to have any procedure prohibited under Florida statute, we cannot give consent," Munoz said.

 

"No DCF regulation or state law can override a constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court," Simon said. "But putting aside the legalisms, forcing a 13-year-old to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her wishes not only is illegal and unconstitutional, it's cruel."

 

When she learned of her pregnancy, L.G. received counseling at a women's health clinic, discussed her options with responsible adults and understood the abortion procedure and risks, the ACLU appeal said. She is not being treated for mental or psychological disorders.

 

"There is nothing in the record to support the presumption that she cannot make an informed decision to have an abortion," the appeal said.

 

Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida lawmakers have tried for years to tighten state laws on abortion.

 

After the state Supreme Court struck down the 1999 parental notice law, lawmakers voted last year to change the Constitution to make such a law possible. Voters approved the amendment in November, and lawmakers currently are moving legislation along to require physicians to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a girl under age 18.

 

Note: I copied/pasted the article, which I initially saw on Yahoo! News but the link stopped working. This one is at this link: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/28/State/13_year_old_faces_cou.shtml though I don't know how long the link will endure.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

First of all, at 13, she risks taking damage from giving birth a lot more than an adult does. Her body is just not ready for it. She's capable of giving birth, but at very high risk of serious injuries for doing so.

 

Second of all, at 13 years old she is certainly not ready for the emotional stress of giving a baby up for adoption - and don't get me started on raising a kid. She is a kid, for crying out loud! If kids could raise themselves they'd not need adult techs at the shelters - the children could have run it themselves!

 

"There is nothing in the record to support the presumption that she cannot make an informed decision to have an abortion," the appeal said.

Exactly.

 

The *only* arguable reason for anti-abortion is religion

Certainly not, with all due respect, but for lacks of better arguments, most anti-abortionists love to use religion as a shield to further their cause, just like anti-homosexuals do. It's most often that, or resulting to extremism, like saying gays will be the death of the world or that abortion is plain out murder.

[Kurgan]

One could also point out that the # of homosexual couples is quite small compared to the # of heterosexual couples (and I doubt those numbers would expand out of control just because Gay marriage was legal, as the percentage of the population that is homosexual has always been small). Of course I don't know the numbers on couples that are in line for adoption in the United States, so if somebody has that data that would be useful.

 

Would it be useful to combat the problem of parent-less kids? I imagine so. I'd rather a kid be adopted by a gay couple than aborted.

 

And to the people insinuating that white people only want white kids, I've seen enough reports about white or mixed race couples adopting non-white children from the third world or even from the third world in the US. Being wealthier puts you up on the list, in any case.

 

As for cracking down on spam, I'd like to let everyone know that this goes for all sides of the debate, not just the cons who spam... This is a serious debate, but let's not get too carried away in any case, just do the best you can and try to read up on the posts.

[RoxStar]

The *only* arguable reason for anti-abortion is religion

 

 

Care to explain that?

[TK-8252]

Care to explain that?

 

Well, just look at this thread. The anti-abortion side has no actual legitimate arguments (lots of straw men, however). If someone wants to be against abortion because of their dogma, fine, but when someone tries to argue it in a secular way it falls flat.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

@RoxStar-

You may wish to change your title from "Sans Reason" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that means "without reason") before debating this topic

[TK-8252]

@RoxStar-

You may wish to change your title from "Sans Reason" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that means "without reason") before debating this topic

 

It's recommended.

[Kurgan]

Well, just look at this thread. The anti-abortion side has no actual legitimate arguments (lots of straw men, however). If someone wants to be against abortion because of their dogma, fine, but when someone tries to argue it in a secular way it falls flat.

 

Sounds like somebody hasn't been paying close attention... perhaps labelling all the anti-arguments religion is the actual strawman here, no offense. In fact it seems like in this discussion, religion has most often been brought up by those arguing in favor, not against. Maybe the word you're looking for is red herring. While that may be an important part of many or most dialouges on the subject, I don't think it's a fair characterisation of this one.

 

Edit: Dagnabbit, now there are two active threads on abortion (one continued from 2004). One of them was relatively free of religious arguments, which was the one I was referring to. Let's not merge them, I suggest we continue the discussion on the more recent one. How about that? Since it's a perennial debate issue...

 

Newer thread:

http://http:/http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=161335&page=5&pp=40&