Aurora Starfire Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 The 'morning after' pill (aka emergency contraception or EC) could technically be characterized as an abortifacient since it will work to prevent implantation of an existing embryo. However, this medication, which is basically a souped up version of the Pill, still is designed to prevent ovulation more than anything else, rather than kill an embryo. My apologies, that's the one I meant. I'm not very familiar with all the different stuff, so if I make a mistake like that, feel free to correct me I disagree that "The Act" is designed merely for procreation. It also makes an important contribution to the depth of the marriage relationship as a whole. This is a good point, too. Now that I think of it, my mom did mention that part of it, but it was a while ago, and I forgot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Skywalker Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 'Case anyone cares, the Yes option won the poll, so now women can abort freely in Portugal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 No, they can't, just read in an online newspaper that due to the low number of people bothering to vote, the vote is invalid. So, while the pro-choice gained a majoroty, you still need to get raped in order to be able to abort. But before the pro-life people begin to party, it should be noted that around 10 000 women are sent to hospital with injuries resulting from illegal abortion. Too bad, that law semmed in desperate need of changing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Ten thousand seems an awfully high number in a country as small as Portugal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 It's quite possible, I believe it has a dense population like the rest of Europe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Skywalker Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Well, most people didn't vote. This is the responsibility of the people you see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 True that it takes the people to vote. *sigh* It looks like people are more in favor of what they can do to their bodies but as I said in the ethics thread, the moral compass points you in the direction you should take but it doesn't make you go there. What to do next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Hm...let me ask just one, ONE question to the Pro-Lifer crowd. I'm just curious, just all. Suppose that the fetus is indeed a living being with a soul and when you are killing it, you are killing a human being. Why are you angry about it? The fetus gets a one-way ticket to Heaven, or to Baby Hell (which isn't that bad). After all, he has done no bad deeds [expect, say, maybe the Original Sin], and the fetus just live his life normally, so the fetus is purely good and therefore gets to go to a Better Place . So, is abortion really that bad a deed as you claim...because the fetus is going to Heaven and living a better life than the life he would be living if he was indeed born and grow up in this world. It no longer have to worry about the agonies of living in this world, it can now live peacefully in the Afterlife, and very gladly I might add. And what if the fetus becomes an adult and does bad deeds and goes to Hell? Wouldn't it be much more better for the fetus to be aborted so that it does not go to Hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurora Starfire Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Um, because God specifically said, "Thou shalt not kill"? Further, if God's only intention was for us to go to heaven, He would have simply created us there, and not here. What He wants, I believe anyway, is for us to choose Him of our own free will, for us to want to be with Him, and to choose to do the right thing because He wants us to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Ten thousand seems an awfully high number in a country as small as Portugal. Not when the population is around 10 000 000. And its probably more, since the penalty for trying to/abort, is several years in prison. Now how many would go to a hospital unless severly injured when you risk geting arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Um, because God specifically said, "Thou shalt not kill"? Oh, that rule. Okay, just was wondering. Now I can leave. --- Wait, murphon, I think voting is not really that invalid. The reason is that in stasticis, if you poll 1000 random people, you can figure out what, for the most part, most people believe in, with an error precentage of +2% points. So, for the most part, the elections are valid, since a random group of people voted in Portgual. And if the elections are very close to the wire,and it does not exceeds the 2% margin of error, then they are just arbitrary (a problem of democracy here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hm...let me ask just one, ONE question to the Pro-Lifer crowd. I'm just curious, just all. Suppose that the fetus is indeed a living being with a soul and when you are killing it, you are killing a human being. Why are you angry about it? For the same reason I get angry about anyone getting killed--the killer has just violated that person's fundamental right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 You said it better than I could Jae. The unfortunate thing is that in today's world people kill, the hint being the war on terrorism, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'll address the other half of your arguments in my next post. It's getting late over here. There's nothing I could say, really, that isn't explained better there. At afterabortion.org? Ah yes, your typical anti-abortion site. Naturally, it gives us the vision of a mother strapped to an operating table while a masked stranger slowly snuffs out the innocent life inside her, despite her please for him to stop. Hardly a source I'd consider valid... It makes the abortion look to be a horrible experience the woman has no choice over. Quite the contrary - she chooses to have it done, she pays for it, and that's that. Sounds more like purchasing a service than "medical rape" as the site puts it. (And that's not even mentioning the total lack of evidence it has that says she can't change her mind, supposing she'd even do so at that stage) The only real argument there was that most raped women choose to have kids, which means you should ban abortion just for the hell of it. Simply because 75% or so of the people raped chose to do that means you should force the other people to? No logical reasoning was provided, and that's not even mentioning their sourceless statistic about raped women. In essence, it says that if some people choose to do something everyone else should be made to. You would consider that sufficient justification for no abortion in the case of rape? Perhaps not while they're actually doing it, but they should bear it in mind beforehand and afterwards. Would be a nice thing for them to bear in mind, but I doubt they would, unfortunately. You didn't even address the fact that most women are far more traumatized by abortion than giving up their child for adoption. Seeing an infant taken away to likely never be seen again is one thing... Removing a mass of mindless cells from your body is another. But hey, that's their choice. I don't think it's reasonable for the government to babysit its populace down to that level. As for orphanages being unpleasant, perhaps you've been reading too much Oliver Twist The source ET provided addresses that well enough IMO. I'm not going to spend too much time explaining one of the more minir reasons. Er, that has very little correlation to the topic. A shirt is totally, completely, utterly and irrevocably different from a baby. In a sense, not particularly.... You're attempting to force your own views on someone who doesn't want them, and for what reason? They're your own views, and to deny them is to oppress them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 As a male in my fifties, who is not linked to a paternalistic religion, I can have only one stand on this. I do not have to carry the child, supply it's needs (carrying it to term, Comfort or nursing) I should have no opinion. It is not my body that is being used by this child. Do I have a say as the father? Yes, but my vote boils down to the equivalent of a non-permenant member of the security council She must, by definition, have the final veto. Part of the problem Ihave with the right to lifers is the commercials they do with adopted kids and saying 'all were unwanted ptegnancies'. Well It ain't necessarily so. I spent a year in the Lena Pope Home in Texas. Not as an orphan, but as someone stashed there while my mother fought a very nasty divorce back in the sixties. Exactly two of my sisters were worth adoption then, one about 18 months old, the other just under a year old. The other for, with me at 13 the oldest of those dropped were not. The man who ran the boy's wing had been raised there, four of the older inmates who left in that year had spent their entire lives in the home. When i arrived there were 32 kids in the boys wing. when I left there were forty, and that includes the ones who left. Empty every orphanage, regardless of their ages. Have every kid in a home. It doesn't have to be an Ozzie and Harriet home, just a home where they have someone to call mom and dad of their own. When that happens I will cheer the right to lifers on. Until then they are not worth the powder to blow them to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think that every woman should have the right to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if it puts the mother's health at risk. Even if I were to accept the argument that a fetus is a human life (which I don't, uniformily), I still wouldn't be willing to state that an unborn human has more "value" than fully developed and matured human. I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control, except in the cases where another form of contreception was used but failed (the only form of contreception with 100% effectiveness is abstinence). I am not opposed to requiring that all women receive counseling prior to the procedure as part of deterence program. I realize that it would be difficult I think that making abortion illegal only increases the prevelance of back-alley abortions and/or intentional miscarriages. Additionally, it completely ignores the women's privacy issues raise in Roe V. Wade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think that every woman should have the right to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if it puts the mother's health at risk. Even if I were to accept the argument that a fetus is a human life (which I don't, uniformily), I still wouldn't be willing to state that an unborn human has more "value" than fully developed and matured human. I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control, except in the cases where another form of contreception was used but failed (the only form of contreception with 100% effectiveness is abstinence). I am not opposed to requiring that all women receive counseling prior to the procedure as part of deterence program. I realize that it would be difficult I think that making abortion illegal only increases the prevelance of back-alley abortions and/or intentional miscarriages. Additionally, it completely ignores the women's privacy issues raise in Roe V. Wade. All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'. In a rape or incest situation I am all for it because in those cases the woman has no choice as to whether she will even commit the act let alone bear a child. But if she used a form of birth control and it happened, she should accept her mistake and deal with it. As the old saying goes, you place your bets, you take your chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'. So if a couple takes precautions but the precautions fail, they should just throw up their hands and say "oh well, looks like we're having a baby"? They obviously were not trying for a child. Also assume that this is a first-trimester abortion and not one of the 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions that the ultra-conservatives use as a rallying point against the procedure. But if she used a form of birth control and it happened, she should accept her mistake and deal with it. As the old saying goes, you place your bets, you take your chances. I think that you and I are in agreement that it shouldn't be used as a casual form of birth control. I do not agree that "accept the mistake and deal with it" is responsible action or beneficial for anyone involved (especially the potential child). I think the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" argument relies heavily upon the assumption that the female "should have known better". Catholics teach that contraception is a sin. Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee. So again, I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception, however I believe that it is a necessary evil that we will have to live with until our culture adopts a more mature attitude about sex and sexual health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 So if a couple takes precautions but the precautions fail, they should just throw up their hands and say "oh well, looks like we're having a baby"? They obviously were not trying for a child. Also assume that this is a first-trimester abortion and not one of the 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions that the ultra-conservatives use as a rallying point against the procedure. I think that you and I are in agreement that it shouldn't be used as a casual form of birth control. I do not agree that "accept the mistake and deal with it" is responsible action or beneficial for anyone involved (especially the potential child). I think the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" argument relies heavily upon the assumption that the female "should have known better". Catholics teach that contraception is a sin. Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee. So again, I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception, however I believe that it is a necessary evil that we will have to live with until our culture adopts a more mature attitude about sex and sexual health. Hmmm, I'm torn biblicly I shouldnt agree with abortion however I'm definatly in favour of any woman who is the victim of rape, incest or child abuse HAVING THE CHOICE of if she wants an abortion. I also agree that if people are going to have them its better to have abortion legalised than backstreet. And I would rather it was legalised and safe than illegal and highly risky. Slightly off topic but I'm definatly in favour of the legalisation of prostitution and some drugs. Only because people are going to do them regardless so its better to have it legalised, under control and done safely it also reduces the blackmarket potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 No my Greek Friend. What i am saying is that if you play russian roulette, it is not mine or societies fault if you blow your brains out. A lot of those who use abortion as a cure end up having the state (As in you or I) paying for it. I do not at any time suggest this is a woman's fault. If you have a woman rip the condim off and throw it away as I had happen once, it is her fault. If the guy refuses to wear one it is her fault only in that she allowed him to procced. I blame the guy for being such a wuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'. What defines "unwanted pregnancy" though, if you use contraception but it fails, should you still have that child even though you cannot possibly provide for it and it would ultimately ruin your life? Even if you give it up for adoption, you will have lost a few months of your life carrying that child, I think giving it away at that stage would be harder than having an abortion, like Devon said, after a few weeks it is still only a lump of cells... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Slightly off topic but I'm definatly in favour of the legalisation of prostitution and some drugs. Only because people are going to do them regardless so its better to have it legalised, under control and done safely it also reduces the blackmarket potential. I think they should not only legalize prostitution, but anyone who live off the proceeds, except for Madam's that actually supply something beyond the next fix and a beating, should be tried in violation of the 14th Amendment. If beating, brutalizing, forcing a person into an addiction then forcing them to work so you can make money does not violate the anti-slavery laws, I don't know what does. What defines "unwanted pregnancy" though, if you use contraception but it fails, should you still have that child even though you cannot possibly provide for it and it would ultimately ruin your life? Even if you give it up for adoption, you will have lost a few months of your life carrying that child, I think giving it away at that stage would be harder than having an abortion, like Devon said, after a few weeks it is still only a lump of cells... As the pro choice say, and I agree, 'you don't trust me with the choice, but you trust me with a child?' mach--don't double post! --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think they should not only legalize prostitution, but anyone who live off the proceeds, except for Madam's that actually supply something beyond the next fix and a beating, should be tried in violation of the 14th Amendment. If beating, brutalizing, forcing a person into an addiction then forcing them to work so you can make money does not violate the anti-slavery laws, I don't know what does. Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not. That's a very good issue you are touching there, maybe worth having its own thread? Not touching that one with a 10 foot pole in a PG-13 forum. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not. I agree with you on this issue. Although success rates of legalizations around the European countries for example, have been relatively low. From personal research, I'll get back to you with more data if I can find it, only 9% of prostitutes in the Netherlands work in legality. It's mainly problematic due to the stigma that a prostitute is a "bad person". Even legal ones, hide their job from their relatives. However, when you see these people, out on the street in "normal" clothing, you'd never know. The same for porn stars. I've read some of their blogs and they seem like nice people to hang out with. Of course, they maintain their sex kitten image but other then that, they really are just like everyone else. The same goes for prostitutes. Just normal human beings who have their problems like everyone else. Legalizing would allow better check ups, less STD's being transmitted and a legislation that properly protects them. It won't solve every problem, but it'll make it easier for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.