A very Touchy Subject...

[Web Rider]

I'd post links and pictures, but I'm quite certain that forum-mommy would kick in and remove the link due to the PG-13 limit. Do a google search yourself.

 

I wasn't asking anyone to show what they look like. I was asking if Corinthian had seen people, in person(as I have), that fell into those categories. Even if he were to look at some pictures, it's not the same. It's like the difference between seeing the dying in a photo and going to a nursing home.

[Aeroldoth]

I know you didn't ask me, but yes, absolutely. Not only because most anguish in your life actually does get better, but also because suicide has such a disastrous effect on your loved ones (the group most at risk of suicide is the grieving who have lost loved ones to suicide). If you're suffering from some disease that does not get better and causes you unbearable pain, then I support your right to get euthanasia. In all other cases, though, it's a big no from me.

 

You don't feel the choice is theirs? You feel a person should continue to suffer so as not to potentially cause suffering to others?

 

While it's true that most suffering does get better, this is not true for all people or all situations. You don't consider the ability to take one's own life the fundamental right of any living thing? If they don't have final say in their own life, who does?

[Web Rider]

You don't feel the choice is theirs? You feel a person should continue to suffer so as not to potentially cause suffering to others?

 

While it's true that most suffering does get better, this is not true for all people or all situations. You don't consider the ability to take one's own life the fundamental right of any living thing? If they don't have final say in their own life, who does?

 

Things like this must be very carefully handled, much as I don't like the emo movement, I don't want to see half the kids wearing black go and kill themselves and it be legal.

 

Not a single instance of suicide comes to mind where those close to the deceased were not effected by their choice to commit suicide. And yes, most problems outside terminal illnesses and conditions can be handled through therapy, medication, and just talking to people to know you're loved. And for those without family, there are many, many groups to join to help you with problems and make friends.

 

I do agree that we should have the "right to die", but under very specific circumstances. Can't go having everyone kill themselves just 'cause they hit a rough patch. Some problems can be worked through, some can't.

 

 

On a similar note, if one was pregnant(noticeably so), and wanted to kill themselves, and they had "the right to die", would it be abortion? Would the person be prevented from doing so till the baby was born? Would she have to get an abortion first?

[Aeroldoth]

Things like this must be very carefully handled, much as I don't like the emo movement, I don't want to see half the kids wearing black go and kill themselves and it be legal.

 

Why must it be 'handled' at all? Emos are NOT going to kill themselves en masse, just as Goths didn't. Forgive me, but your argument sounds akin to the anti-homosexuality crowd, "if we allow it, EVERYBODY will do it." Not gonna happen.

 

Not a single instance of suicide comes to mind where those close to the deceased were not effected by their choice to commit suicide. And yes, most problems outside terminal illnesses and conditions can be handled through therapy, medication, and just talking to people to know you're loved. And for those without family, there are many, many groups to join to help you with problems and make friends.

 

I'm not saying relatives aren't affected, of course they are. And yes, many problems can be handled with love and counselling, that wasn't my concern. As with abortion, my issue is with the notion that the one must suffer so that others aren't made 'uncomfortable', that others know what's best for you.

 

I do agree that we should have the "right to die", but under very specific circumstances. Can't go having everyone kill themselves just 'cause they hit a rough patch. Some problems can be worked through, some can't.

 

As with abortion, who gets to decide where the line is? Why do others get to decide my fate? And again, people aren't going to kill themselves over a bump in the road, but even if they did, so what? However tragic it may be, are you suggesting you have more say over a person's life than they themselves do?

[Totenkopf]

..and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.

 

Word to the wise, if you're hand isn't living.......get rid of that necrotic mass before it gets rid of you. But judging from some of your previous statements, aren't the beneficiaries of your "eugenic concern" already born? Do they no longer have the rights they got at birth b/c you've decided that their quality of life sucks/costs to much? If rights don't come from God or just by the benefit of your being human, then who decides? Remember, blacks were only 2/3 of a person in Dixie and Jews and slavs were merely subhuman in the 3rd Reich (and history is no doubt replete with a plethora of other examples of this kind of thinking).

 

Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.

 

I think you're taking him out of context here. I believe (he can correct me otherwise) he's referring to the pain and suffering of the life you seem too eager to snuff out for purely eugenic reasons. Further, I'm curious as to how many women/girls are actually in peril as a percentage of all child bearing women. Any stats? From a coldly analytical pov, the number of women who abort for reasons of rape and complications are statistically insignificant. It's an accepted fact by reasonable people that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive bc, which I suspect is one of the reasons the practice is so controversial.

 

Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

 

Interesting.....but then by the numbers, you come across as the genocidal maniac versus mere serial killer.

[Jae Onasi]

As I have already stated in this thread, adoption is completely unrelated to the issue. The question at hand is whether or not women have the legal right to safe abortions. Availability of adoption has absolutely nothing to do with that question.

 

I do want to take a moment to give kudos to your sister-in-law as well as all others that care for these children. My hat's off to them.

 

I think the presentation of adoption as an option during pre-abortion counseling might give some women something to consider and might affect the abortion rate, but otherwise yes, it's unrelated to the actual legal right. As for the legal right, I'm really uncomfortable with the whole thing. I could not abort my own child (except in certain specific cases like anencephaly, where the baby has absolutely zero chance of surviving). I think it's a procedure dealt with far too casually by a number of women as 'just another birth control method' or 'way to deal with a problem'. I recognize that there are going to be specific health conditions for which terminating the pregnancy is probably going to be the best health choice for a woman, so I'm not inclined to roll back the clock to make it illegal. I just wish it wasn't done nearly as often as it is.

 

I'll pass along your kudos, btw. My sister-in-law is an awesome woman (and her hubby's terrific, too), and she works her tail off trying to make life better for these kids, all of whom have come out of some truly horrible and/or dire situations. They've had as many as 9 boys in their home at one time. I don't know how they do it.

[Achilles]

I saw a video many years ago, I believe it was Ralph Reed, discussing this topic in a strategy session. The point the speaker made was that they didn't want to be, couldn't be, "anti-abortion". To be "anti-" something made people less likely to support you. You couldn't be against something, you had to be for something. So, the speaker proposed, they should stop calling themselves "anti-abortion" and instead "pro-life".

I understand and completely agree with the rationale behind the decision. What I take issue with is the implied message that comes with the label, i.e. "if we're 'pro' life, then our opponents must be...."

 

That was actually my meaning. As long as a woman is not currently pregnant or is too physically weak from her last pregnancy she should be constantly attempting to conceive a child. Not giving her egg the correct environment in which to produce another human being is robbing that (soon to be) unique genetic code at it's right to life.

Whew! Glad to hear that we were on the same page after all.

 

Then surely you're against male masturbation and female menstruation, too? After all, every single sperm cell and egg has the potential of developing into a human being. Who are we to 'murder' them by menstruating or ejaculating them away?

 

Seriously, a sperm and egg separated have the same level of consciousness as do two that have been merged. Yet one is considered a 'child' to you and given the right to life pretty much no matter what.

Please forgive the splitting of hairs, but I felt important to point out that with the advent of somatic cell nuclear transfer ANY human cell has the potential of developing into a human being. I think (as I have stated ad nauseam) that your list of "murderous" actions should include scratching, bathing, sneezing, grooming one's hair, wearing clothes, or any other activity that might cause someone to discard precious life (e.g. cells). Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

I think the presentation of adoption as an option during pre-abortion counseling might give some women something to consider and might affect the abortion rate, but otherwise yes, it's unrelated to the actual legal right.

Happy to hear that we agree.

 

As for the legal right, I'm really uncomfortable with the whole thing. I could not abort my own child (except in certain specific cases like anencephaly, where the baby has absolutely zero chance of surviving).

And if our government had decided that you had to carry the baby to term regardless of the circumstances, thereby completely eliminating your ability to choose, how would you feel? Suppose that the government had made this decision based on Islamic values?

 

Maybe I've missed something, but the "pro-life" crowd seems intent on abolishing all abortion, everywhere, regardless of the circumstances. Even you seem to be willing to admit that there might be an extreme set of circumstances in which you might consider abortion. It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't true for all women. Obviously, the issue is not as black and white as some would like to believe that it is.

 

I think it's a procedure dealt with far too casually by a number of women as 'just another birth control method' or 'way to deal with a problem'.

It sounds as though you've opted to base your opinions on your own speculation and perception of what other women are like rather than any kind of research. *shrugs*

 

I recognize that there are going to be specific health conditions for which terminating the pregnancy is probably going to be the best health choice for a woman, so I'm not inclined to roll back the clock to make it illegal. I just wish it wasn't done nearly as often as it is.

And how often do you think abortions are carried out as a means of retroactive birth control vs. the best health choice for the woman/child? I realize that I'm asking for your opinion, however I'm obviously going to be more readily persuaded by actual statistics from credible sources.

 

I'll pass along your kudos, btw. My sister-in-law is an awesome woman (and her hubby's terrific, too), and she works her tail off trying to make life better for these kids, all of whom have come out of some truly horrible and/or dire situations. They've had as many as 9 boys in their home at one time. I don't know how they do it.

Thank you for doing so!

[Tommycat]

Um... couple of points I would like to address.

 

First, Retardation is not sufficient reason to abort. My son(not biologically mine, but he's still my son) has Cerebal Palsy, Should he have been aborted? He has a physically and mentally debilitating illness. Would he be better off never having been born? He was also born very early. not quite second trimester or anything, but still extremely early. He was also anticipated to have a very short life-span. 5 months was the original projection. Then 5 years, then 8 years, then no more than 15 years of age. We just quit listening to lifespan predictions after he reached 15 years old. Now he's 18. He likes the same music as I do(thank heavens) goes to tons of shows, and has been both on tour with me, and hung out with loads of major bands. Many of them invite him to sit side stage for their shows. According to some on here you would rather him never been born as he would be a burden on his 16 year old mother. It was known weeks into the pregnancy that he would likely have health problems.

 

Aborting to prevent sterility is a bit silly. Aborting and any other surgery that affects the reproductive organs runs the risk of causing sterility through infection.

 

Some of your comments on here remind me of Gattaca. It is very disturbing.

 

Keep in mind that I am pro choice for others, for my own, I'm pro life.

[Jae Onasi]

Maybe I've missed something, but the "pro-life" crowd seems intent on abolishing all abortion, everywhere, regardless of the circumstances. Even you seem to be willing to admit that there might be an extreme set of circumstances in which you might consider abortion. It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't true for all women. Obviously, the issue is not as black and white as some would like to believe that it is.

There's definitely some gray areas. There are 2 major camps on this--unrestricted abortion including using it for retroactive bc and allowing it up to 40 weeks' gestation, and those against it no matter what. It's hard to find some kind of middle ground that recognizes true health needs vs partial-birth infanticide or using it because she had a little 'oops' or the boyfriend is pressuring her because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of being a father.

 

It sounds as though you've opted to base your opinions on your own speculation and perception of what other women are like rather than any kind of research. *shrugs*

That's why I qualified it with 'I think'. I don't know what the break-down currently is for reasons for abortion, but I don't doubt there's data out there on that. I know the risk of serious health problems during pregnancy is very low, and it appears that the number of abortions done is higher than what would be expected for that risk rate.

 

And how often do you think abortions are carried out as a means of retroactive birth control vs. the best health choice for the woman/child? I realize that I'm asking for your opinion, however I'm obviously going to be more readily persuaded by actual statistics from credible sources.

It depends on what you consider 'best health choice'. If you narrowly define it as 'doing it only when the woman's health is in real danger', the data's going to be skewed towards retroactive bc. If you define 'best health choice' very broadly, such as including things like anxiety over financial situations due to birthing a new child, that's going to skew it the other way. I'm sure Medline has plenty to say on the subject.

[Aeroldoth]

I've already asked this of Corinthian, but I'd like to repeat the question to anyone else here who is pro-life and/or anti-abortion:

 

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

 

Jae?

[JediRevan]

I don't want you to be PC, I want you to be honest. I don't care if I don't like what you say, the point of speaking your mind is to speak your mind. So yes, your honesty makes me happy. ^_^

 

 

straw man. I've rather clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about. If you want to address what I've actually talked about, great! Otherwise stop winning your own arguments.

 

 

yeah, well I DO care about pain and suffering. And I'm not going to try and justify killing people to save every god-forsaken child in the world.

 

 

They ranged from late teens to late 60's. It was a college classroom. It's easy to diss eugenics when all you know of it is the propagandized "OMG HITLERZ!!!"

 

 

and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.

 

 

Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.

 

 

Oh please, stop the straw men already. I have already clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about and they are NOT THEM. So stop making up BS.

 

 

So a 16 year old who's pregnant(and giving birth will kill her), has "lived" enough to validate her death to birth a child?

 

 

Then quit saying you are pro life. you AREN'T All those people, like it or not, are life, as defined exactly the same way as a newborn baby. They have human DNA, they are animate and so on.

 

Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

 

I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken.

 

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception. It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along. No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born. If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.

[Achilles]

Unanswered questions...bummer.

 

There's definitely some gray areas. There are 2 major camps on this--unrestricted abortion including using it for retroactive bc and allowing it up to 40 weeks' gestation, and those against it no matter what. It's hard to find some kind of middle ground that recognizes true health needs vs partial-birth infanticide or using it because she had a little 'oops' or the boyfriend is pressuring her because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of being a father.

Hmmm...sure seems like at least one side of this debate has been over-simplified. Granted, I'm not as "up" on the actions of the "pro-choice" crowd as I could be, but it would seem to me that I would have at least heard some sort of fight against the existing laws for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions if your portrayal were true. But again, that I haven't might simply be ignorance on my part.

 

That's why I qualified it with 'I think'. I don't know what the break-down currently is for reasons for abortion, but I don't doubt there's data out there on that. I know the risk of serious health problems during pregnancy is very low, and it appears that the number of abortions done is higher than what would be expected for that risk rate.

I caught the qualifier and appreciate your having used it.

 

Still sounds mostly speculative though

 

It depends on what you consider 'best health choice'. If you narrowly define it as 'doing it only when the woman's health is in real danger', the data's going to be skewed towards retroactive bc. If you define 'best health choice' very broadly, such as including things like anxiety over financial situations due to birthing a new child, that's going to skew it the other way. I'm sure Medline has plenty to say on the subject.

I'm still baffled that this issues is widely percieved as having to be black or white when so many people seem perfectly willing to agree that it's shades of gray.

 

If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right. If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.

 

I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken.

Congratulations all around.

 

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception.

I appreciate you clearly stating that this is a matter of opinion. Considering that others have very different opinions from yours, would you agree that a less subjective definition would be beneficial? What criteria would you suggest be used to find said objective definition?

 

It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along.

Indeed. If a heartbeat were to be used as one of the potential objective standards for "personhood" then perhaps would could agree that abortions that take place during the first trimester do not constitute murder.

 

No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born.

Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

 

If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.

And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.

[Tommycat]

If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right.

 

Incorrect. Abstinence is 100% effective(unless you believe in immaculate conception, then in that case you better not abort haha), it is just not as fun:D

 

If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.

This is an aspect I find very disturbing from the pro-choice crowd. It seems a bit like picking and choosing your children. Again I point out that my son was not expected to live to 5 months(truth be told he was not even expected to live his first day). Yet he has been living a fairly full life. I cannot in good concience say that birth defects are a good reason to abort.

 

And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.

She would not be getting an abortion either if she believed that strongly.

[Achilles]

Incorrect. Abstinence is 100% effective(unless you believe in immaculate conception, then in that case you better not abort haha), it is just not as fun:D

If you consider abstinence contraception. I don't.

 

This is an aspect I find very disturbing from the pro-choice crowd. It seems a bit like picking and choosing your children. Again I point out that my son was not expected to live to 5 months(truth be told he was not even expected to live his first day). Yet he has been living a fairly full life. I cannot in good concience say that birth defects are a good reason to abort.

I don't think it should be up to me to decide whether or not you have a choice not to consider a severely disabled child a challenge. Neither do I think it should be up to the government to decide that for a mother. I certainly applaud any couple that makes the choice to face that challenge head on, but not every couple can, therefore not every couple should be expected to.

 

I very much hope that my argument isn't somehow being mis-characterized as someone sending a salad back to the kitchen because they don't like the dressing. I'm talking about situations where parents are being faced with the heart-wrenching news that their child might be born without essential organs or with terrible diseases that would render the child's short life painful, etc.

 

She would not be getting an abortion either if she believed that strongly.

The response you quoted dealt with contraceptive use, not abortion.

[Tommycat]

If you consider abstinence contraception. I don't.

Nope, I consider it birth control though. Since we're splitting hairs haha...

 

I don't think it should be up to me to decide whether or not you have a choice not to consider a severely disabled child a challenge. Neither do I think it should be up to the government to decide that for a mother. I certainly applaud any couple that makes the choice to face that challenge head on, but not every couple can, therefore not every couple should be expected to.

 

I very much hope that my argument isn't somehow being mis-characterized as someone sending a salad back to the kitchen because they don't like the dressing. I'm talking about situations where parents are being faced with the heart-wrenching news that their child might be born without essential organs or with terrible diseases that would render the child's short life painful, etc.

I'm just pointing out the obvious slippery slope you're going down. I mean you may not be talking about it, but what is currently to stop someone from deciding to abort because this child doesn't meet their level of perfection. It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy. As we get to know the markers in genes better, what's to stop people from choosing the taller kid, the lighter skinned child, the one with blue eyes. To me that is a dangerous path to tread down. Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing.

 

The response you quoted dealt with contraceptive use, not abortion.

I know, but you were using a religious argument. I was pointing out the flaw in that argument for supporting your views on abortion. Its also likely that if they believed that strongly they wouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. That's also a sin.

[Achilles]

I'm just pointing out the obvious slippery slope you're going down. I mean you may not be talking about it, but what is currently to stop someone from deciding to abort because this child doesn't meet their level of perfection. It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy. As we get to know the markers in genes better, what's to stop people from choosing the taller kid, the lighter skinned child, the one with blue eyes. To me that is a dangerous path to tread down. Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing.

Indeed there is slippery slope to eye with concern. Do you think that paper-thin rhetoric does (or will do) anything to address that?

 

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.

 

I know, but you were using a religious argument. I was pointing out the flaw in that argument for supporting your views on abortion.

Not sure I follow. If a woman believes that using contraception will negate her chances for salvation, then I do not believe that she is very likely to begin using contraception to avoid pregnancy. Please show me the flaw in that argument regarding contraception (noting that abortion was not mentioned here, in my original response, nor in the section of the post that my original response addressed).

 

Thanks for reading.

[mimartin]

It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy.[/Quote]The practice of “Female Infanticide” is very real and nothing new. While I do not condone either, I would find the aborting the fetus before birth preferable to the current practice of murdering the new born after birth although according to what I read the practice of abortion due to sex is prevalent too.

 

gendercide.org

CNN

 

Female First

Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing. [/Quote]I agree, but just as disturbing as murdering or neglecting an unwanted child.

[Aeroldoth]

Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

 

Well said.

 

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.

 

Also well said.

[Tommycat]

Indeed there is slippery slope to eye with concern. Do you think that paper-thin rhetoric does (or will do) anything to address that?

Not sure what you mean by paper thin rhetoric. I certainly hope you aren't saying that I am just using rhetoric. Personally I am not opposed to abortion in general. In fact I will always stand on the side of it being a legal medical procedure. I just tend to disagree with how it is currently treated as an easy fix to an OOPS. It should never be treated so lightly.

 

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.

I certainly hope you do not think of me as one of those that would simply label you as a murderer to deflect from actually having rational discourse. Granted we may disagree on the implementation and the degree as to whether a woman should be allowed to abort up to a certain time frame. I also believe that the reasons for abortion should be addressed so as not to have it be a de-facto eugenics.

 

Not sure I follow. If a woman believes that using contraception will negate her chances for salvation, then I do not believe that she is very likely to begin using contraception to avoid pregnancy. Please show me the flaw in that argument regarding contraception (noting that abortion was not mentioned here, in my original response, nor in the section of the post that my original response addressed).

 

Thanks for reading.

Sorry I think I was editing at the time you posted, but I also added that it was also just as much of a sin to have intercourse out of wedlock in the same religion. I hope you don't think I subscribe to that philosophy, just pointing to the huge gaping hole in the logic of bringing damnation for contraception when it is equally damning to have the relationship that would require the use of contraceptives.

[Achilles]

Not sure what you mean by paper thin rhetoric. I certainly hope you aren't saying that I am just using rhetoric. Personally I am not opposed to abortion in general. In fact I will always stand on the side of it being a legal medical procedure. I just tend to disagree with how it is currently treated as an easy fix to an OOPS. It should never be treated so lightly.

The characterization was not leveled at you, specifically. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a bit of it in this thread and my hope was to show how little it does to either address the issues or move the conversation forward in a productive way.

 

I certainly hope you do not think of me as one of those that would simply label you as a murderer to deflect from actually having rational discourse. Granted we may disagree on the implementation and the degree as to whether a woman should be allowed to abort up to a certain time frame. I also believe that the reasons for abortion should be addressed so as not to have it be a de-facto eugenics.

Again, the comments were directed more towards some of the arguments we've seen that mirror this train of thought than at you directly. Anti-abortionists in general (whether or not you fit in this camp is up to you) seem to prefer name-calling and mis-characterization to actual discussion about the issues, hence my rant.

 

Sorry I think I was editing at the time you posted, but I also added that it was also just as much of a sin to have intercourse out of wedlock in the same religion.I hope you don't think I subscribe to that philosophy, just pointing to the huge gaping hole in the logic of bringing damnation for contraception when it is equally damning to have the relationship that would require the use of contraceptives.

Why is it that you assume that the hypothetical sex is out of wedlock? Contrary to the rumors, married people do occasionally have sex...and not always for the purposes of having a child. The catholic church's ban on contraception is not limited to sex outside of marriage. In fact, since they forbid fornication, it's obviously intended to be ban on contraception use by married couples.

[Tommycat]

The characterization was not leveled at you, specifically. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a bit of it in this thread and my hope was to show how little it does to either address the issues or move the conversation forward in a productive way.

Agreed. Keep it civil and on point.

 

Again, the comments were directed more towards some of the arguments we've seen that mirror this train of thought than at you directly. Anti-abortionists in general (whether or not you fit in this camp is up to you) seem to prefer name-calling and mis-characterization to actual discussion about the issues, hence my rant.

If I mischaracterize your argument, I am merely trying to get a feel for just how far you would take it. Or I do it to show the worst case scenario of what you propose. In debates as jaded as this one, there tends to be so much grey area, that sometimes the grey tends to slip into what I would call black.

 

Why is it that you assume that the hypothetical sex is out of wedlock? Contrary to the rumors, married people do occasionally have sex...and not always for the purposes of having a child. The catholic church's ban on contraception is not limited to sex outside of marriage. In fact, since they forbid fornication, it's obviously intended to be ban on contraception use by married couples.

It does not matter. According to catholicism, any intercourse not for procreation is a sin(hey them ain't my rules, Hence why I am not a practitioner of any religion... I fear religion. Wars tend to be fought over religion). So in essence whether she(or he for that matter) uses contraceptives in or out of wedlock is the same sin as having intercourse not for the purpose of having a child(again not my rule. I enjoy fornication... Lust is my favorite sin).

[Achilles]

Agreed. Keep it civil and on point.

Considering the scope of the topic, I think I've accomplished both. I have every confidence that the moderator team will step in if I fail to do so.

 

And we appreciate you keeping it civil. This is a tough topic for a lot of people, and civility keeps it from degenerating into uselessness. Thanks to everyone who's helped maintain calm. --Jae

 

If I mischaracterize your argument, I am merely trying to get a feel for just how far you would take it. Or I do it to show the worst case scenario of what you propose. In debates as jaded as this one, there tends to be so much grey area, that sometimes the grey tends to slip into what I would call black.

Interesting that I have repeatedly attempted to show that the issue is, in fact, gray area. If you want to show that it is black and white, then you are certainly welcome to attempt to do so.

 

If your goals is to probe the boundaries of my argument, might I suggest that you try questions? FWIW though, I think I've been pretty good (but doubtless far from perfect) about stating them plainly. As always, I will make every attempt to clarify any point that comes across unclear.

 

It does not matter. According to catholicism, any intercourse not for procreation is a sin(hey them ain't my rules, Hence why I am not a practitioner of any religion... I fear religion. Wars tend to be fought over religion). So in essence whether she(or he for that matter) uses contraceptives in or out of wedlock is the same sin as having intercourse not for the purpose of having a child(again not my rule. I enjoy fornication... Lust is my favorite sin).

Since we seem to have clarified that my earlier comments had nothing to do with abortion, I will assume that we can safely abandon this portion of our discussion until JediRevan chooses to respond. Thanks for your insights.

[MJ-W4]

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point.

Well said.

 

I'd like to stress that this is a woman's choice to make and from my experience, it doesn't come easy to any responsible woman - which most women are. Irresponsible women as portrayed in the media - pick any 'party girl' you like - by no means represent the majority.

 

My wife had severe pancreatitis when she was two and a half months pregnant the first time and she had to be operated on. Because of a mistake in anesthetics, the foetus was injured and was bound to die in the womb from complications. The decision whether or not she wanted to live was my wife's (We don't live in the US). If she had not had the abortion, she would have died along with the foetus. I did my best to support her rather than give her more grief than she already had. We now have a number of kids because she lived.

 

As long as we - the men - are not in their shoes, we should respect women's choices and help them as best we can. Depending on circumstances, some abortions need not be but it is the women who should have the last word.

[Web Rider]

I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken.

 

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception. It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along. No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born. If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.

 

That's nice, But do you mean to say that a man with a fake heart is not human?

 

Word to the wise, if you're hand isn't living.......get rid of that necrotic mass before it gets rid of you. But judging from some of your previous statements, aren't the beneficiaries of your "eugenic concern" already born? Do they no longer have the rights they got at birth b/c you've decided that their quality of life sucks/costs to much? If rights don't come from God or just by the benefit of your being human, then who decides? Remember, blacks were only 2/3 of a person in Dixie and Jews and slavs were merely subhuman in the 3rd Reich (and history is no doubt replete with a plethora of other examples of this kind of thinking).

If you'd like to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to do so in a different topic. I cannot adequetely do my views justice here and I don't want to derail this topic...any more.

 

I think you're taking him out of context here. I believe (he can correct me otherwise) he's referring to the pain and suffering of the life you seem too eager to snuff out for purely eugenic reasons. Further, I'm curious as to how many women/girls are actually in peril as a percentage of all child bearing women. Any stats? From a coldly analytical pov, the number of women who abort for reasons of rape and complications are statistically insignificant. It's an accepted fact by reasonable people that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive bc, which I suspect is one of the reasons the practice is so controversial.

When science shows that they can feel pain and suffering, I'll relent, until that time, as I said before, the pain and suffering is entirely the choice of the mother, since the fetus is little more than an extension of her physical self.

 

 

Interesting.....but then by the numbers, you come across as the genocidal maniac versus mere serial killer.

If you want to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to post my views...in a separate topic, instead of simply flinging around labels.

 

 

Why must it be 'handled' at all? Emos are NOT going to kill themselves en masse, just as Goths didn't. Forgive me, but your argument sounds akin to the anti-homosexuality crowd, "if we allow it, EVERYBODY will do it." Not gonna happen.

it was a joke. Laugh, or dont, and get over it. Funny? To me heck yeah.

 

As with abortion, who gets to decide where the line is? Why do others get to decide my fate? And again, people aren't going to kill themselves over a bump in the road, but even if they did, so what? However tragic it may be, are you suggesting you have more say over a person's life than they themselves do?

 

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more, and because people will kill themselves over things that they could have worked through. And I don't want to see either of those things happen. Namely because I believe in personal responsibility and I know enough depressed people who have cut, attempted, or worked through it to know that there are few "rough patches" in life worth killing yourself over.

[Tommycat]

Interesting that I have repeatedly attempted to show that the issue is, in fact, gray area. If you want to show that it is black and white, then you are certainly welcome to attempt to do so.

Indeed there is much grey. There just also happens to be some that are black and white. Obviously you would agree that after the child is born, there is no more choice as to whether to abort. The real question is where the grey stops. My feeling is that the second trimester should be where it stops, with the exception of the threat of death of the mother. But I tend to see very little use for the D&E procedure(Partial birth abortion). At 32 weeks a child can be safely removed from the womb with a cesarean(my completely healthy daughter was removed at 32 weeks). If it comes down to she just doesn't want a scar, I have a problem with that.

 

If your goals is to probe the boundaries of my argument, might I suggest that you try questions? FWIW though, I think I've been pretty good (but doubtless far from perfect) about stating them plainly. As always, I will make every attempt to clarify any point that comes across unclear.

Well, in asking for clarifications, sometimes the easiest way is to put forth an example and ask if that's how far you would take it. I mean I can only read so much from your arguments, and feel that we should be clear where we stand. You appear to stand on the side of anytime the woman wants to have an abortion it should be available to her. I disagree with that. In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed.