Religion and Homosexuality in United States Politics

Discussion in 'BOARDANIA' started by Deathinapinkboa, Oct 16, 2005.

Page 2 of 2

  1. Hsing Moderator

    I agree with Spiky and Andalusian (needless to say by now, I guess). Although I'd like to point one thing out: The guys do have an opinion, even if they say "I'm a man, so I don't have an opinion on the issue" - that is an opinion, i.e. that it's the women's thing to decide.
    And I don't believe in telling people they can't have an opinion.

    The pattern Spiky sees, though, is interesting, and all too familiar.

    Brad, I've considered your points. Again, I may be pro choice, but I'm not anti baby... I just don't [i:d36a8820ad]belive [/i:d36a8820ad]in the state ever being capable forbidding abortions, nor do I believe its the right and fair step, neither taking the women's right into account, nor the potential baby's rights. Plus, no, I don't condemn personal decisions, while others do.
    But the "do the urgent stuff first" is, in reality, not quite aplicable to the people I've been talking about...
    Those people who, for example, in Ireland only 30 years away, saw that the woman who aborted was punished as well as was the woman who had her baby. Having an out of wedlock child put you, quite often, in the Magdalenes -or resembling- houses, who were mere women prisons with a clerical touch.

    The pattern today is rather blurred in comparison, but the shapes are still there. The examples I gave: The same -very same- people who call themselves "pro life activists"* seeing things like dismissal protection for mothers as an incompetent meddling of the state where business should run freely. Or, in a smaller but equally important frame: Asking girls who got pregnant to leave school, instead of helping them to finish their education and improve their -and the childs- perspectives.

    Or even smaller, but not quite unimportant, because most people reflect on how they are perceived and act accordingly: Frowning on a single woman who has her child instead of praising her. Many people still do that.

    I myself [i:d36a8820ad]like [/i:d36a8820ad]hearing that the number of abortions drop -and they did during the last two years in Germany, as far as I remember. Its a good sign for a community if more women decide it's worth taking the risks.

    When I decided to have my unplanned baby, despite the two of us having no income at the time, and unsure perspectives and all, I did so because I was optimistic about the relationship I was in, I knew my family would back me up as good as they could, and I also put some trust in the fact that, however depressing it might get, the German state doesn't let anyone starve. I guess those are the things it takes, or at least two of them. It was less a rational calculation than a feeling that there was no need to despair.

    Those, though, who feel that despair, will often decide not to have the child and take all means, clinic or coathanger, and it has always been like that in human history - always. **

    If you want to prevent abortions, give people reasons not to despair, or to be optimistic about, and maybe the feeling that having the child would not not rob them of their dignity.


    Buzzfloyd said everything about the matter of abstinence I could say.

    Also: It just won't happen. It won't. Wether you find that good, sad or just natural, it as a matter of fact will not happen, and despite other sayings, has never happened in human history. Not even in the monasterys of Middle Aged Europe. Especially not there.

    In those areas where there's no sex education, the number of unwanted pregnancies never dropped, as far as I am aware, or at least not for a long time. What I am absolutely sure of, though, is a correlation, everywhere on the world and through all periods of time, between education and the age of mothers: The more education, the olders the mothers, and less children, and those being better off. In areas of need that is a good thing. Want avoid teenage pregnancy? Put money into education! And avoiding teenage pregnancy also means avoiding abortions, to a degree.
    (Send them to uni and you'll one day might have to beg them to reproduce.)

    In response to Janible: I'm one of those who'd agree, and probably even insist, on a time cap. I think there's a difference between an abortion in the first trimester, and a medically induced stillborn child. And I don't think that contradicts my views. I know you can't ever cover all cases, but where we live, you mostly become aware of the pregnancy during the first trimester, and should make your choice then, and take the stage of development into credit, because there's a huge difference between week ten and week 20.
    Aborting a child that, in other cases, would have been kept alive with all means because it was "born too early" at the same stage, makes no sense to me. I know what the pro fraction might say, but I am against late abortions, as they are called here - abortion of a child that, if not killed within the womb, might, with help, already be able to live outside the mother.

    And in response to Andalusian's examples: My sex education in school took place when I was eleven or twelve, and I actually think that's already too late. By then, my playmates had confused me with a lot of horror stories, third hand accounts, and porn hefts they had stolen from their fathers. And those where your normal average children! Its just that they ask themselves a lot of questions very earliy on, especially taking into account what they see on TV every day, and if the grown ups don't provide some answers, they do themselves, often with hilarious to horrible results.

    Another part of my sex education, if you can call it that, had been taken over by the nun in our small Catholic sunday group - I went to a protestant elementary school, and being Catholic, got my religion lessons not at school, but from the Catholic community. Sister Mechthild showed us a cute small plastic fetus, pictures of aborted feti, dead babies, and described us in detail the procedures. The usual material, from what I later found out. I was ten years old and pretty shocked. (See how it worked, too.)


    *(I'm putting that between quotes because it seems to indicate all the others are anti-life-activists, and I for once am not)

    ** I could provide some history, if anyone's interested.
    Seriously.

    Edit: added missing words
    Hsing, Oct 24, 2005
    #61

  2. sampanna New Member

    I read the thread with great interest, and I must say, I agree with Hsing almost all the way.

    About education, and sex education in particular - there was almost none in my school. At least, nothing which actually contributed .. there was just one session, which was fairly crappy and uninformative. I really think this is directly responsible to the huge population we have .. people are just not aware of the consequences of their actions.

    Sure, Indian society encourages abstinence till marriage, but realistically, I don't think this happens much .. at least in the urban areas.
    sampanna, Oct 24, 2005
    #62

  3. Pepster New Member

    Is terminating a potential a potential person murder? Well ultimately I believe it to be a grey issue that the parents must decide for themselves free of the scorn and pressure of others. That said they must also take responsibility for their choice, pixel if they wonder what that aborted child may have become later then they have to face the responsibility and live with their decision then.

    Further in the choice of late abortions where the aborted child still needs to be in a sense born (or otherwise removed from the mother's womb weeks/hours before a live birth) perhaps the option of adoption should be stressed if it is possible. Why waste a perfectly good baby.

    As a side note, I believe the father often gets off easy on the abortion issue and should be made much more responsible than they are now. If anyone should get punished it is those men/boys who abandon their partners after leaving them with child. That's not even getting into the punishments rapists* should endure.

    It these sort of grey issues where a legal line may be drawn in the sand, i.e. abort up to here and no further, that I think are the most dangerous. How easy is it to shift the line, a little bit at a time, until using contraceptives is considered murder? Until absurdity itself becomes legal and it is considered murder even when a sperm is wasted (jacking off in this case would be equal to genocide).



    *interesting typo this was originally rappers.
    Pepster, Oct 24, 2005
    #63

  4. roisindubh211 New Member

    for the sex ed thing- I agree that it is important, but looking at what I got in school... My health teacher basically taught us about male homoxexuality when I was twelve (not an 'this is how some people are, and we should respect that' but rather 'this is how men have sex with each other. Isn't that interesting?') I later had a teacher in high school who, despite giving us some important information, set me against him immediately by his contempt for the idea that anyone could POSSIBLY practice abstinence.

    The best 'sex-ed' lessons I ever got came from my mom and our parish priest, even though his purpose in the lecture was 'this is what the church teaches, therefore this is how you should live' (being a priest, I'd guess that's his job)
    School horrified me, because of the assumption of permissiveness and 'anything goes' attitude of the teacher, and because I was made to feel, however unintentionally, that being Catholic=being stupid.
    roisindubh211, Oct 24, 2005
    #64

  5. roisindubh211 New Member

    also, I see how many of you guys don't feel you have a right to an opinion on the matter, and I think that's wrong. Like it or not, it takes two to make a baby- I think the father should be involved in the decision, and as such you [i:629dcdd93f]must [/i:629dcdd93f]have some idea whether you believe its right or wrong.
    roisindubh211, Oct 24, 2005
    #65

  6. sampanna New Member

    I agree, the man should also have an opinion. But I'm confused about the following situation:
    Say there is an accidental pregnancy, mother wants an abortion but father says he wants the baby and will raise the kid single handedly if he must. Who gets a call in such a situation?
    sampanna, Oct 24, 2005
    #66

  7. roisindubh211 New Member

    If someone is willing and able to raise the baby, then there is no longer a valid reason not to have it, as far as I am concerned.
    roisindubh211, Oct 24, 2005
    #67

  8. sampanna New Member

    True, but the father is not the one who has to go through a difficult nine months, right? I think that is why a lot of men posted that they do not feel they have a right to an opinion here.
    sampanna, Oct 24, 2005
    #68

  9. Hsing Moderator

    Sampanna: That's an interesting question. I asked my husband, and I'll try to give you his point of view. He says before having become a father, he would have said it's my choice alone. Now that has shifted a little. From the point of view of our partnership, he would expected to be heard, as he expressed it, and would have a hard time coping with it if I would have an abortion against his will. He doubts, though, that this could in any way be put into a law, or call it veto right. He'd probably always be against it, except my life was in danger or something, but that's our private situation -[i:8cb8629f23] we want[/i:8cb8629f23] other children anyway. Even though we just get along financially right now and would like this situation to improve before having another child, bad timing alone would not result in not wanting to carry out the child. We pretty much agree to that, though.

    Its again an aspect, though, that I find hard to put into rules that would be applicable to everyone and their situation.
    Hsing, Oct 24, 2005
    #69

  10. fairyliquid New Member

    Quickly point out my standing on this issue…I am all for abortion under the right circumstances, I think it’s up to a woman to decide because no one can fully understand her situation. I don’t have much new to add to this issue that has not been fully addressed so far so I’ll move on to the next ones at hand..

    Sampanna: A father of my ‘potential’ child asks me to continue a pregnancy for him to raise the child and look after…alone if he must. My main problems with this are 1) will he stick around for nine months and then stick to his word and take the child if that is the agreement. 2) Do I care for this man enough to go through 9 months of pregnancy, become attached to the child I’m carrying (something I imagine is inevitable) then give him/her up?

    [quote:c5724996b0="roisindubh211"] If someone is willing and able to raise the baby, then there is no longer a valid reason not to have it, as far as I am concerned. [/quote:c5724996b0]

    Personally I don’t think anyone has the right to ask someone to go through that emotional hell for anything. True the baby would have a home…but is it worth risking your mental health for? The trauma of giving up a child can be heart wrenching and may do more harm than good. Honestly, I couldn’t trust the father to stick to his word…if I trusted him completely he wouldn’t be going off alone to raise the child, he would hopefully understand my opinion not to have the child (for whatever reasons) and understand the sacrifices I would have to make so he can have a child if I went through with it.

    Then again, if having the child was possible, if I could risk loosing the time for birth and recovery, if I could make it through all that and be sure I would come out relatively okay in the end then yes…it would be like putting the child up for adoption, only with a biological father.

    It would never be the father’s choice however. Ultimately, it’s mine.


    In response to the sex ed point…I have had the rather amusing benefit of experiencing this in the British public system, an American curriculum and an international one.

    British was mostly giving us the facts and simply telling us not to do anything fooling. This was at an early age…about 10 I think.

    American was laughable…none was given before 13 and even then it was pathetic. It was all abstinence although they did mention contraceptives simply telling us they should stop pregnancy. Not exactly thorough though.

    International was probably the best…they are forced to cover everything and simply tell parents if they don’t like it move them. They tell us all the facts and if there are any beliefs you wish to promote then that is done outside school. They gave us all the options…there is abstinence, if you don’t choose this there are contraceptives, be aware they don’t work, etc. This education was given twice, although I missed the first which was at the age of 12, I was 14 when I received this education. By the time I got to this age though…nothing was new. Anything I hadn’t learnt through school my mum had told me earlier. What did shock me were some people in the class who were completely ignorant in the subject…one of the reasons I think the school does it so late. People move around so much in these places that these things can be easily missed.

    Anyway…that’s all I have time to type up at the moment. Apologies for anything that is unclear as it is late…
    fairyliquid, Oct 24, 2005
    #70

  11. roisindubh211 New Member

    in response to fairyliquid:

    1- why would you even sleep with someone you distrust and hold in such contempt?
    2- I apologize for judging you, but that is pretty fucking selfish. Its not just you who's involved here- there is a human being; however early in its formation.
    If you become attached to the child, then so much the better- you have a child who is loved and wanted by both parents.

    [quote:2c6abdcda5] Honestly, I couldn’t trust the father to stick to his word…if I trusted him completely he wouldn’t be going off alone to raise the child, he would hopefully understand my opinion not to have the child (for whatever reasons) and understand the sacrifices I would have to make so he can have a child if I went through with it. [/quote:2c6abdcda5]

    I am quite frankly astounded at your logic. You say if you 'trusted him completely' but why does that mean he shares your exact beliefs and opinion on the matter? I know people hesitate to mention this, but it is very often a belief or opinion with its roots in personal religious faith. I couldn't imagine telling my boyfriend 'yes, i know you think its wrong, and are willing to take responsibility for this entirely, but I consider my own beliefs far more important than yours.' Because most of the arguments against an abortion are based on the idea that it is murder, and equally as horrible.
    roisindubh211, Oct 24, 2005
    #71

  12. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I believe that utimately women should and do have the right to choose (it's their body, after all) I do think that mens rights in the abortion issue is vastly under regarded(?). If a man is willing to raise the child- and provide fananical support (if not emotional) during the pregancy then I think the woman should have the child. Fairy, you talked of the emotional truma this may cause the woman, but like wise we should also take into account the emotional truma that the termination of a wanted baby could cuase the man. Is one worth more than the other?

    Nor, do I think a 'mistrust' of men as a valid reason-unless the man as a history of lying. Mistrusting him just because he's a man (which is how it came across) seems unfair to me.


    Obviously, You can't make generalisations on thinks like this, if will differ from case to case and person to person.For example, If the lady was in such a state that she couldn't actually cope with being pregant- I mean really not cope, not just find it incredably stressfull- then I think it would be acceptable to go ahead with the abortion. If is more the they would find the effect of it on thier lifestlye hard/ would find it emotionally draining, in such cases I think having an abortion seems like for conveince, which I disapprove of. By convience, I understand, that it would be incredably hard, but if the child is wanted and the father is willing to give support I believe it would be wrong to abort.
    Rincewind, Oct 24, 2005
    #72

  13. roisindubh211 New Member

    [quote:61902ee76d]it's their body, after all)[/quote:61902ee76d]

    Its not her body. Its someone else inside her.

    She's just the host body it needs for food and shelter...

    sorry. I do mean my first statement...the second is just something that popped into my head.
    roisindubh211, Oct 24, 2005
    #73

  14. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    What you call a 'body' I call a 'collection of cells'- at least for the stages where i think abortion is an acceptable option.
    Rincewind, Oct 24, 2005
    #74

  15. Marcia Executive Onion

    My sex education:

    We were taught how babies were made (sexual intercourse) in first grade (six years old). We didn't get into any details about contraception or morals or responsibility, but I think we were probably too young for that.

    In high school, sex ed was a part of hygiene. We learned about STD's, pregnancy and contraception. (Contraception included the rhythm method and abstinence.) We learned about the risks of contraception failing, and we learned about the health risks of both pregnancy and contraception. Pregnancy is a lot more dangerous to a womans' health than any form of contraception.

    My mother used to work for the Welfare department and she dealt with lots of poor young, unwed mothers who had to support themselves and their children on state benefits, which are extremely low. She gave out free condoms.
    Marcia, Oct 24, 2005
    #75

  16. Bradthewonderllama New Member

    My sex education was very similar to Marcia's. Except that we started it in middle school (the 11-13 year ages).


    Hsing, while it might not be applicable to the people that you've been talking about, it is applicable to many 'pro-lifers'. For example, those who follow official Catholic dogma. Anyhow, I'm happy to see that this debate is expanding.
    Bradthewonderllama, Oct 24, 2005
    #76

  17. Pixel New Member

    [quote:d70d9ba5cc="roisindubh211"]in response to fairyliquid:

    1- why would you even sleep with someone you distrust and hold in such contempt?
    ..................[/quote:d70d9ba5cc]

    Roisin - be fair - sometimes one cannot tell someone's real character until it comes to the crunch - it could be all good and trusting until the dreaded words "I think I'm pregnant" come out - I have a particularly strong feeling about this, because when they were said to me, I immediately went down on one knee in the traditional fashion and asked her to marry me - OK, maybe not totally traditional as we were both naked at the time - that was when the relationship fell apart - I was never allowed in her bed again, although we remained friends until she went back to the US - if she had just waited until the morning and seen the proof that she wasn't pregnant, we might have still been together - but the point I am making is that you never know what is going to happen until it happens (and that is either a deeply philosophical statement or I have just gone totally Bursar!) and there are two sides to every opinion (Yes, OK, totally Bursar!)
    Pixel, Oct 24, 2005
    #77

  18. Hsing Moderator

    No. At least six sides to every opinion, and all by the same person, that's it, no Bursar stickers for anyone under that level.
    Hsing, Oct 24, 2005
    #78

  19. Pixel New Member

    [quote:d08d039b5c="Hsing"]No. At least six sides to every opinion, and all by the same person, that's it, no Bursar stickers for anyone under that level.[/quote:d08d039b5c]
    I'm sorry, Hsing - on this discussion I think we have points we agree on and points we disagree on, and I value your opinion enough to spend time to understand your posts and make a proper reply - appreciating that the language we are using is my native language but not yours - but this post I simply do not understand - are you saying I am being inconsistent in my arguments? If so, why? We obviously both have very strong views on the subject, as is proved by the length of the posts we make - maybe we should take this discussion into Private Messages/"Clacks" - or maybe the other people involved in the discussion will simply bear with us when we take ages to reply to each other and end up with points being cross-posted all the time!
    Pixel, Oct 25, 2005
    #79

  20. spiky Bar Wench

    Pixel I don't think Hsing was being derrogatory here... I think she was extending the bursar joke by saying that under the way the Bursar works two sides to an opion aren't enough. To be considered Bursar you would have to personally hold 6 sides to an opinion all by yourself...

    Even I've confused myself with that explanation/interpretation :roll:

    In summary, Hsing was saying that you are [b:68726e7cd6]not[/b:68726e7cd6] Bursar.

    Hope that makes you feel better.

    Father's rights: This is where it all gets sticky and coming up with hard and fast rules is going to create problems.

    I've been with guys who when we first got together I thought were really nice and fun the relationship was in the throws of what I thought was going to be a long-term thing... In less than a week after the beginning of sexual relationships they've cheated, lied and stolen. If at the end of that week (or however long afterwards it takes to figure out I'd got pregnant, these things aren't instantaneous) I would have believed that I owed the guy nothing, maybe not even owed him the courtesy of telling him I was pregnant.

    Do I owe him enough to carry a baby to term just because he wants to keep it?

    Personally, I'm glad I've never had to make the choice but I'm not going to tell someone else that they did it wrong...

    Even the situation I'm in now I'm not ready for kids... I work full-time, do PhD part-time and trying to raise a baby too would just about kill me. Its not a lifestyle thing, my ability to earn money is reliant on me completing a PhD, I can't complete a PhD with a baby, basically meaning I can't be employed in my current profession leaving not many other options... I freak out at the whole scenario neverlone someone younger, with less income and without a partner.
    spiky, Oct 25, 2005
    #80

  21. sampanna New Member

    [quote:e75139e761="Hsing"]No. At least six sides to every opinion, and all by the same person, that's it, no Bursar stickers for anyone under that level.[/quote:e75139e761]

    Si, I think it was meant as a joke Pixel :)
    sampanna, Oct 25, 2005
    #81

  22. Hsing Moderator

    I was indeed attempting to joke about your comment on having two sides on one opinion, and thus feeling Bursar.

    Edit to add: See Spiky's translation.
    Hsing, Oct 25, 2005
    #82

  23. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I'm surprized that in this hypovetical (sp?) sitution you always imagine the guy is a bastard, maybe it's a reflection on some of the guys you've dated or maybe it just makes the scenero easier. So be honest *even* if the guy lied or cheated to you, your defenatly 100% responsible to tell him your pregant, regardless, of how much you like he guy it concerns him. Anyway, It's most likely that someone whos willing to raise a child completely on his own isn't going to be a sleezy bastard, or even if it is, at least it shows how much he wants the child. How it effects the father *is* something that people have to take into consideration.
    Rincewind, Oct 25, 2005
    #83

  24. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:4dcbd71df3="roisindubh211"]1- why would you even sleep with someone you distrust and hold in such contempt? [/quote:4dcbd71df3]

    Maybe at the time I didn't? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe something happened for him to lose my trust. Or maybe it's because I'm a teenager and feel like keeping up our reputation for early pregnancies. A number of things can happen here...though I am a genuinely distrustful person and even with someone I trust it would still be something I would have to consider. I'd always have this feeling of unease at the back of my mind telling me that if he doesn't stick to his word I may have made a huge mistake. This last part is personal to me though and is more in my nature.

    [quote:4dcbd71df3]2- I apologize for judging you, but that is pretty fucking selfish. Its not just you who's involved here- there is a human being; however early in its formation.
    If you become attached to the child, then so much the better- you have a child who is loved and wanted by both parents. [/quote:4dcbd71df3]

    It is selfish...you're right. I consider it potential for life but every bit as precious. However I am of the opinion that sometimes you have to be selfish. Some cases it’s just too much of a sacrifice. Pregnancy is not an easy thing and it should never be taken lightly…the case may be that you trust the father implicitly and believe that a child in his hands would be perfect for him, depending on the circumstances I may do it. I do not think the father should ask this to be done. He cannot say he wants the child so the mother must go through with the pregnancy. That is what I have the problem with. If the mother is willing (and I mean completely and unwaveringly willing) to go through with this and give up a child at the end as well as being sure that this is something the father can take on and not just a distant thought and fantasy he has convinced himself will work.

    The fact is I think pregnancy helps to prepare you for the child; it makes you begin to think a little more responsibly about your actions. ‘If I do this will it hurt the baby?’ ‘I should do this because it helps the baby’. I’m of the opinion it is like a prerequisite for a child so you don’t suddenly have this child that is entirely reliant on you and requires your full attention. If the father takes the child, how will he cope with this sudden new life around? I’m not so sure I could dump that on someone; I would have to be 100% certain that the child has a decent start and is not thrown into someone who is completely unprepared.

    So I would have to be sure I, personally, could cope and the father could as well. Then I may consider it…it would be for the child though, not the father.


    [quote:4dcbd71df3] [quote:4dcbd71df3] Honestly, I couldn’t trust the father to stick to his word…if I trusted him completely he wouldn’t be going off alone to raise the child, he would hopefully understand my opinion not to have the child (for whatever reasons) and understand the sacrifices I would have to make so he can have a child if I went through with it. [/quote:4dcbd71df3]

    I am quite frankly astounded at your logic. You say if you 'trusted him completely' but why does that mean he shares your exact beliefs and opinion on the matter? I know people hesitate to mention this, but it is very often a belief or opinion with its roots in personal religious faith. I couldn't imagine telling my boyfriend 'yes, i know you think its wrong, and are willing to take responsibility for this entirely, but I consider my own beliefs far more important than yours.' Because most of the arguments against an abortion are based on the idea that it is murder, and equally as horrible.[/quote:4dcbd71df3]

    The father may be against abortion but, as I said before, it comes down to if I can go through with the pregnancy or not. If he does not want me to have an abortion for the simple (well as simple as it can be) reason that he is against abortion then, frankly, he is just going to have to accept that it is my body. If the situation makes me feel I am unable to have this baby then I take full responsibility for the ‘murder’ of the potential child.

    A good analogy would be in life saving when rescuing a person from the water and you are put into a position that could potentially hurt you then your life comes first. That’s the rule. If it means leaving the patient to drown then so be it, you are the number one person in a rescue. Even if their parents are standing at the edge screaming at you for killing their child.

    Put this into context…the drowning person is your potential child, naturally the person pregnant is the rescuer and the father is the screaming parents. If you can’t do the rescue then you can’t, if you can’t have the baby then you can’t. The father is not the issue, yes he [i:4dcbd71df3]could[/i:4dcbd71df3] raise the child but he doesn’t have to go through the nine months before hand and the separation after. Yes you could go and have the baby and it may make it out alright and you go on with life as normal. However, it would more likely leave you emotionally drained, possibly depressed and have just lost you a portion of your life to actually give birth to the child.


    A major point I would like to make is that you cannot say if you abort the baby you would regret it and use this as a reason because I am sure there are people who regret the life they had the potential to have if they had aborted. Yes the baby was born but were the consequences worth it? Some people may not think so. The truth of the matter is that regret will follow every decision and situation.

    I should also mention that these are opinions I have at the moment. I could find myself in the situation and be unable to abort…I don’t know if I could actually go through with it. I have never been that position.
    fairyliquid, Oct 25, 2005
    #84

  25. sampanna New Member

    sampanna, Oct 26, 2005
    #85

  26. Marcia Executive Onion

    Marcia, Oct 26, 2005
    #86

  27. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I think Fairyliquid's drowning analogy is an excellent illustration.

    A father has rights, but the end does not always justify the means in my opinion. It is important to bear in mind the drubbing a woman's body has to go through to bear a child, as well as her mental and emotional wellbeing. Especially in the case of a pregnancy where the mother does not want to go through with it, the suggestion is that the man should be allowed to have the potential child regardless of the damage it does to the mother.

    Even without getting into the discussion of whether or not we should emotively call a foetus a 'baby', it is important to remember that pregnancy has a massive impact on a woman that will never leave here. I think it is hard for anyone to imagine the full impact until they have experienced it firsthand.

    I fully sympathise with the point of view of a father who feels he has been denied the chance to receive and raise his child, or who feels horror at what he sees as his baby's murder; but the presence of these issues does not make the other issues go away. The father who wishes the mother to carry the baby to term unwillingly is one who wishes to violate her body and force her into a painful, frightening and permanently scarring course.
    Buzzfloyd, Oct 27, 2005
    #87

  28. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:c31fca57a8="Marcia"]

    What about those lifelike dolls they give young people, that are supposed to cry and need attention like real babies, (and set off some kind of alarm if the cries are ignored for too long) to give them an idea of what it is like to have to care for a newborn 24 hours a day?[/quote:c31fca57a8]

    Do they give them everywhere, in every school? This is the kind of thing I support wholeheartedly, but I doubt it's that well implemented in practice.

    [quote:c31fca57a8="roisindubh211"]for the sex ed thing- I agree that it is important, but looking at what I got in school... My health teacher basically taught us about male homoxexuality when I was twelve (not an 'this is how some people are, and we should respect that' but rather 'this is how men have sex with each other. Isn't that interesting?') I later had a teacher in high school who, despite giving us some important information, set me against him immediately by his contempt for the idea that anyone could POSSIBLY practice abstinence.
    [/quote:c31fca57a8]

    Thank you, Roisin, this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I originally made my post.

    [quote:c31fca57a8="Buzzfloyd"]I fully sympathise with the point of view of a father who feels he has been denied the chance to receive and raise his child, or who feels horror at what he sees as his baby's murder; but the presence of these issues does not make the other issues go away. The father who wishes the mother to carry the baby to term unwillingly is one who wishes to violate her body and force her into a painful, frightening and permanently scarring course.
    [/quote:c31fca57a8]

    I can honestly say that I will probably never fully understand the mental suffering a pregnant woman undergoes. I guess this is the sort of thing one can only understand firsthand.

    What I want to point out, Grace, is the exact opposite of your point. The emotional damage the woman endures doesn't take away the emotional damage a father gets when his child dies.

    edit: Fixed quote.
    Roman_K, Oct 31, 2005
    #88

  29. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I agree. I think we've shown quite adequately by now that the topic is not black and white, and there is an awful lot to consider. The outcome will be different for every case, and that's why it's important to have choice.

    I'm still musing about Pixel's views on punishment. What if I got pregnant and decided to have an abortion for some reason? Pixel thinks I should be killed for it. If I had an abortion, should I expect Pixel to come round in the morning and shoot me? Or was the idea that someone else would do the actual dirty work, and Pixel would just dispense justice from the safety of his armchair and the impossibility of his ever being in the same position as a pregnant woman?
    Buzzfloyd, Oct 31, 2005
    #89

  30. Pixel New Member

    [quote:5e8d06c8f5="Buzzfloyd"]I agree. I think we've shown quite adequately by now that the topic is not black and white, and there is an awful lot to consider. The outcome will be different for every case, and that's why it's important to have choice.[/quote:5e8d06c8f5]
    Of course - no topic is ever black and white - I know I have a tendency to argue as though the answer to any question is a yes/no option, but for me, I think in comon with a lot of people, conceding points always feels like ground lost - everyone gets defensive when their opinions are attacked

    [quote:5e8d06c8f5="Buzzfloyd"]I'm still musing about Pixel's views on punishment. What if I got pregnant and decided to have an abortion for some reason? .[/quote:5e8d06c8f5]
    OK - what reason? If some medical condition, such as, say, a genetic clash between you and Garner, means that even having the embryo in your body is risking your life, then abortion is simply self defense - perfectly acceptable - but if it is a matter of potentially fatal birth problems, there is always the Caesarian option.

    What I object to is the idea that [i:5e8d06c8f5]any[/i:5e8d06c8f5] person should be considered fair game for extinction, just because they have not yet come out into the outside world.

    [quote:5e8d06c8f5="Buzzfloyd"]Pixel thinks I should be killed for it. [/quote:5e8d06c8f5]
    Depending on the reason, as I have said above - I think it is well known that I am a hard-liner in terms of punishment - I support the death penalty, and if a baby is aborted for simple convenience - which, if one faces it honestly is the most common case - then that is no less murder than rubbing out a business rival or carrying out a drive-by shooting on a rival gang member.
    [quote:5e8d06c8f5="Buzzfloyd"]If I had an abortion, should I expect Pixel to come round in the morning and shoot me? Or was the idea that someone else would do the actual dirty work, and Pixel would just dispense justice from the safety of his armchair [/quote:5e8d06c8f5]This is a total red herring - I simply stated what in my opinon the law should be - in the case of any law that we may agree with, but others do not, aren't we all letting the legal system "do our dirty work"?
    [quote:5e8d06c8f5="Buzzfloyd"]and the impossibility of his ever being in the same position as a pregnant woman?[/quote:5e8d06c8f5]
    This argument is along the same lines as saying that the rich (or even comfortably well off) are not entitled to opinions on theft because they do not need to steal. There are certain basic rights and wrongs, and in my view, denying anybody a chance at a good life without good reason is wrong.

    Edited to clean up a dodgy bit of grammar
    Pixel, Oct 31, 2005
    #90

  31. Marcia Executive Onion

    [quote:7e933e6408="Pixel"]

    What I object to is the idea that [i:7e933e6408]any[/i:7e933e6408] person should be considered fair game for extinction, just because they have not yet come out into the outside world.[/quote:7e933e6408]

    That's just it. At the time when most abortions take place, the thing that is being killed is not a person.
    Marcia, Oct 31, 2005
    #91

  32. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Apologies in advance if this post looks a mess due to quoting!

    [quote:5c577f8df1="Pixel"][quote:5c577f8df1="Buzzfloyd"]I agree. I think we've shown quite adequately by now that the topic is not black and white, and there is an awful lot to consider. The outcome will be different for every case, and that's why it's important to have choice.[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Of course - no topic is ever black and white - I know I have a tendency to argue as though the answer to any question is a yes/no option, but for me, I think in comon with a lot of people, conceding points always feels like ground lost - everyone gets defensive when their opinions are attacked[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Well, I don't mean to be rude, but you should learn to get over it. To continue arguing a point [i:5c577f8df1]only[/i:5c577f8df1] because you don't wish to capitulate seems pretty silly. You lose more ground, and more face, by doggedly holding on to an argument that is being beaten.

    All that said, I'm not quite sure what point you are making. Are you suggesting that you take extreme stances initially because you are afraid of losing ground later? Perhaps you could clarify this point for me.

    [quote:5c577f8df1][quote:5c577f8df1="Buzzfloyd"]I'm still musing about Pixel's views on punishment. What if I got pregnant and decided to have an abortion for some reason? .[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    OK - what reason? If some medical condition, such as, say, a genetic clash between you and Garner, means that even having the embryo in your body is risking your life, then abortion is simply self defense - perfectly acceptable - but if it is a matter of potentially fatal birth problems, there is always the Caesarian option.[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Any reason. Your initial comment, which sparked the entire debate, was:
    [quote:5c577f8df1]I think that in law, women who have abortions and people (medical or otherwise) who carry them out should be executed - after all, they have already shown what value they place on a human life - why should their values not be applied to them as well?[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    You don't mention anything about reasons there. That's the biggest problem people had with what you said, I think; it ignores the fact that people can have bloody good reasons for making such a decision.

    [quote:5c577f8df1]What I object to is the idea that [i:5c577f8df1]any[/i:5c577f8df1] person should be considered fair game for extinction, just because they have not yet come out into the outside world.[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Define 'person'. As Marcia said, there is an important debate over whether a foetus yet constitutes a person. Using emotive terms like 'baby', 'child' or 'person' for the foetus clouds the issue. The foetus is not yet even a discrete entity.

    That said, many women feel the same depth of bereavement over the abortions they have had for [i:5c577f8df1]well considered reasons[/i:5c577f8df1] as they would for any lost child or loved one. I am not trying to deny this attachment in discussing what constitutes a person; I'm just trying to show that there is an issue to consider there. Do you believe in natural rights, Pixel? I don't.

    [quote:5c577f8df1][quote:5c577f8df1="Buzzfloyd"]Pixel thinks I should be killed for it. [/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Depending on the reason, as I have said above - I think it is well known that I am a hard-liner in terms of punishment -[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Depending on the reason was not part of your initial statement, which I was discussing. It's nice to know you wouldn't shoot me for, for example, saving my potential child from a short life of pain, even though you'd still happily see no end of pain caused to all my family and loved ones if I had an abortion because I thought I didn't have enough money to support a child.

    [quote:5c577f8df1] I support the death penalty, and if a baby is aborted for simple convenience - which, if one faces it honestly is the most common case - [/quote:5c577f8df1]
    Is it? I won't ask you for evidence, since none of us is trying to supply any, but this is a very sweeping assumption. I am facing it honestly, and I cannot see that convenience is the most common case. Firstly, I am not aware of any country that allows abortion for convenience - eg "I couldn't give birth then, I'm supposed to be going on a skiing holiday!"

    I suppose your reason for this statement is that you categorise reasons like 'no home, job or income' as mere inconveniences. I would suggest that women who make the decision to have an abortion because they feel they couldn't support a child, are doing so because they don't want to bring their baby into a world where they feel they [i:5c577f8df1]cannot care for them[/i:5c577f8df1]. It's not a question of convenience, it's a question of acknowledging the huge cost (in many terms, not only financial) and responsibility of becoming a mother, and taking responsibility for the life of a potential child by not submitting it to misery.

    I believe the majority of abortions are carried out due to physical problems, and/or mental emotional distress on the part of the mother. This last is not to be belittled.

    [quote:5c577f8df1]then that is no less murder than rubbing out a business rival or carrying out a drive-by shooting on a rival gang member.[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    In my opinion, this is absolute bollocks. You assume that most women who have abortions do so in cold blood (for mere convenience). Most women who have abortions need some form of counselling afterwards, in addition to their own soul-searching and the discussions with doctors that come beforehand. I have known many women who have had abortions, and they all spent weeks agonising over the decision, and only went ahead because they thought it was for the best.

    [quote:5c577f8df1][quote:5c577f8df1="Buzzfloyd"]If I had an abortion, should I expect Pixel to come round in the morning and shoot me? Or was the idea that someone else would do the actual dirty work, and Pixel would just dispense justice from the safety of his armchair [/quote:5c577f8df1]This is a total red herring - I simply stated what in my opinon the law should be - in the case of any law that we may agree with, but others do not, aren't we all letting the legal system "do our dirty work"?[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    I don't think it is a red herring, although I concede that your point was about what the law should be. I was trying to show that it's easy to make pronouncements about what the law should be from the comfort of our position; but when you get right down to it and make it personal, things don't look so black and white. It's easy to say women should be executed for having abortions, but when I make it about me, you say it depends on the reason. Some people (not necessarily you, Pixel) only start to understand the problems and complexity of such issues when you make it personal. And then you see that every case is personal for someone. That's the point I was trying to make.

    [quote:5c577f8df1][quote:5c577f8df1="Buzzfloyd"]and the impossibility of his ever being in the same position as a pregnant woman?[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    This argument is along the same lines as saying that the rich (or even comfortably well off) are not entitled to opinions on theft because they do not need to steal. There are certain basic rights and wrongs, and in my view, denying anybody a chance at a good life without good reason is wrong.[/quote:5c577f8df1]
    It would be along those lines if I had said you weren't entitled to an opinion, but I didn't. I think your analogy fits my point nicely, so I'll carry it across. A rich person may have an opinion on theft, but it's a lot easier for them to make a black and white statement about it, as you did - "stealing is wrong and thieves should be executed" - than it is for a poor person, because the rich guy has never been in a position where he has had to steal to live, and probably will never be. So it's easy for him to make pronouncements about what should be done to thieves when he is well-cushioned against the possibility himself.

    Also, that there are certain basic rights and wrongs is a philosophical assumption. I doubt you think that everyone has to agree with you on philosophical matters. What if a woman believes death is not a bad thing and that her foetus's potential life would be far worse than death, that ending a life is not always wrong, and that if the foetus has a soul it will go to heaven? If all those beliefs were assumed, would she still be as callous a person as you make out when she decides to end a pregnancy?
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 1, 2005
    #92

  33. Pixel New Member

    [quote:3f5ab0520f="Marcia"][quote:3f5ab0520f="Pixel"]

    What I object to is the idea that [i:3f5ab0520f]any[/i:3f5ab0520f] person should be considered fair game for extinction, just because they have not yet come out into the outside world.[/quote:3f5ab0520f]

    That's just it. At the time when most abortions take place, the thing that is being killed is not a person.[/quote:3f5ab0520f]

    That is one of - and probably the most important of - the biggest stumbling blocks in the whole abortion debate - there are so many different ideas about when a blob of jelly becomes a person - as an agnostic, I am not talking about when a "soul" gets attached to the embryo, as a tentative spiritualist (I don't know, but it would be nice to think that dying doesn't mean extinction but shouldn't involve Heaven or Hell) I wonder about the immature mentality that might be denied a fair chance - in any moral debate, we all draw our own lines - in my case, I have chosen to consider that basic contraceptive measures, whether barrier or prevention of implantation of the ovum in the womb lining are just fudging the odds - as I think it was Hsing said - any sexually active woman is likely to be losing feritlized ova on a regular basis - but if that ovum has settled into the niche that nature has prepared for it then it deserves not to be interfered with.
    Pixel, Nov 1, 2005
    #93

  34. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    The problem here is your applying moral standards meant for human beings to things that aren't humans. They are potenial humans. Your blurring the contexts of these words. You can't 'murder' a potenial human in the same way you could an actual human. Therefore you can't apply the moral condement to the action. The loss of a Potential Human is a tradegy, not a crime.
    Rincewind, Nov 1, 2005
    #94

  35. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:7caa1edc0d="Rincewind"]The problem here is your applying moral standards meant for human beings to things that aren't humans. They are potenial humans. Your blurring the contexts of these words. You can't 'murder' a potenial human in the same way you could an actual human. Therefore you can't apply the moral condement to the action. The loss of a Potential Human is a tradegy, not a crime.[/quote:7caa1edc0d]

    Define when a person stops being a potential one, and actually becomes a person. That's the whole issue, really. Different definitions of when a person stops being just a possibility.
    Roman_K, Nov 1, 2005
    #95

  36. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    My personal working definition in this case is "when it could survive as a discrete entity". Like Hsing, I draw the line for abortions at the point where a baby could survive if it were born then (although there may always be exceptions, for example if there were medical complications).
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 1, 2005
    #96

  37. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:9bb85bfefe="Buzzfloyd"]My personal working definition in this case is "when it could survive as a discrete entity". Like Hsing, I draw the line for abortions at the point where a baby could survive if it were born then (although there may always be exceptions, for example if there were medical complications).[/quote:9bb85bfefe]

    On it's own, or with medical support? Artificial wombs have been developed, you see, though I'm not sure how well developed the technology is. Would a more agreeable solution be, mayhap, to transfer the embryo to an artificial womb, instead of abortion, thus giving a father wishing to raise his child alone the ability to do so, without the need for the woman not wanting the baby to have it?
    Roman_K, Nov 1, 2005
    #97

  38. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    It's a Gray subject and one that will never be clear cut. I should say that graces definition when it 'exists as a separate entity.' Is as good as any. I say that once the foetus can begin to feel pain the idea of abortion becomes morally shady because your causing physical pain to another creature. As for artificial wombs, if a child can exist in an artificial womb, I don't think an abortion should take place. Woman don't want the child not to exist, they just realise that they can't bare it or give it the life they feel it deserves. If that life can be offered some other way they should allow it. However, I do think that at some point the human race is going to have to start being more responsible with child birth, I can easly picture strange over poplulated dispotias where people can only have babies if they win the 'child lottery', but thats a different story*


    * a bad sci-fi story at that.
    Rincewind, Nov 1, 2005
    #98

  39. Hsing Moderator

    Newest scientific research indicates that the ability to feel pain starts between week 20 and week 25. That's about the same time when prematurely born children, with all possible help at hand, start to have a dim chance of surviving outside the mother's womb. Not only is it [i:9605f2f612]NOT[/i:9605f2f612] possible to grow them outside the womb other than in theory so far, the staff in specialized hospitals here in this region even discusses wether there is a natural limit that medical progress can't break, and wether it has been reached for now.

    Roughly said, a person, for me, is a living being that can feel pain as well as emotions (which can't be proven on unborn children, so I'll go for sure and go for the ability to feel pain only), exist other than in someone elses body (mine, which is also [i:9605f2f612]my[/i:9605f2f612] own body, the body of a living, feeling, thinking person, and [i:9605f2f612]never [/i:9605f2f612]a mere host as it has been called, no matter how pregnant!).
    Hsing, Nov 1, 2005
    #99

  40. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Just as an off shoot- Would we say that a coma patient- who's unable to feel pain/emote is no longer a person?
    Rincewind, Nov 1, 2005
    #100

  41. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    That's a sort of trick question. The trouble with comas is that we can't tell what the person can know or feel. The inability to feel pain on its own is unreliable, as there are illnesses and accidents that can cause this - someone with leprosy is still a person.
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 1, 2005
    #101

  42. Saccharissa Stitcher

    Before week 26 the lungs are not up to the job.

    A foetus is not something that the woman merelyt carries around like a handbag, it is happy when mom is happy, sad when mom is sad, nourished when mom is nurished, and poisoned by all sorts of chemicals when mom regrets its existance.

    http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html

    this link is way too long

    http://abortionclinicdays.blogs.com/abortionclinicdays/2005/10/long_term_study.html

    EDIT:When will I learn not to hit the Submit button instead of the Preview one?

    Anyways, more links and shortening of one of them.
    Saccharissa, Nov 1, 2005
    #102

  43. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:096314dc95="Rincewind"]Just as an off shoot- Would we say that a coma patient- who's unable to feel pain/emote is no longer a person?[/quote:096314dc95]

    No. Pain sensation, in my opinion, does not define a person.

    [quote:096314dc95]Negative outcomes persist in the best of circumstances. Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems -- even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources[/quote:096314dc95]

    Just wanted to quote this little bit from Saccharissa's link. This is brought as an example of psychological responses following abortions, or in this particular case, following a case where the abortion is refused.

    Longitundial research is simply statistics, when all is said and done, and if this was brought as an argument to support fully the choice of abortion, even in families with stable marriages, financial status etc, as the tone of the APA brief seems to suggest, then I'm frankly appaled.
    Roman_K, Nov 1, 2005
    #103

  44. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:f727d3fca9="Roman_K"]Longitundial research is simply statistics, when all is said and done, [/quote:f727d3fca9]
    Could you clarify what you mean by 'simply statistics'? The implication seems to be that statistics are random and meaningless. For psychological studies, I believe there are quite strict rules to apply to data to see whether there is any significant pattern. Perhaps Spiky could add some information on that?

    If the children of unwanted pregnancies where abortion was denied show significant problems, in all backgrounds and not only those where you would expect to see problems anyway, and the pattern was sufficiently noticable to be included in a psychological report, I think that's quite noteworthy. If we could access the actual statistics and you could point to problems in the way they were interpreted, that would be compelling; but to say they are 'simply statistics' is meaningless. Statistics are not, of themselves wrong, arbitrary or meaningless; but the way we interpret them can be, including dismissing them without any critical interpretation.

    [quote:f727d3fca9]and if this was brought as an argument to support fully the choice of abortion, even in families with stable marriages, financial status etc, as the tone of the APA brief seems to suggest, then I'm frankly appaled.[/quote:f727d3fca9]
    Why? If the statistics show a clear correlation between enforcing unwanted pregnancies and unhappy, unbalanced people who require greater assistance from the state and are a greater liability on society, then suggesting this is an indicator for choice does not seem appalling to me.

    I think using carefully interpreted scientific data to inform our decisions is a good thing, not appalling. But perhaps you are suggesting something different was appalling if I have misread you?
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 1, 2005
    #104

  45. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:a9b95c9eaf="Buzzfloyd"]Could you clarify what you mean by 'simply statistics'? The implication seems to be that statistics are random and meaningless. For psychological studies, I believe there are quite strict rules to apply to data to see whether there is any significant pattern. Perhaps Spiky could add some information on that?
    [/quote:a9b95c9eaf]

    Well, the last topic I saw it used was in a study regarding hair colourization of various hues, such as green etc. Judging from that particular article, the rules are not all that strict. And Spiky, I too would like you to expand on this.

    [quote:a9b95c9eaf="Buzzfloyd"]I think using carefully interpreted scientific data to inform our decisions is a good thing, not appalling. But perhaps you are suggesting something different was appalling if I have misread you?[/quote:a9b95c9eaf]

    What I found appaling is not the data, but the suggestion that allowing abortions in stable families is good because the child might have mental issues.
    Roman_K, Nov 1, 2005
    #105

  46. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:24a5a21df5="Roman_K"]What I found appaling is not the data, but the suggestion that allowing abortions in stable families is good because the child might have mental issues.[/quote:24a5a21df5]
    That was not the suggestion by any means. The suggestion was that abortion should be a legal choice for many reasons including that several problems were more likely in children from unwanted pregnancies where abortions were denied, whatever their background, and continued to be a problem even into adult life. Allowing abortions in otherwise stable families is good when there is reason to seek an abortion - refusing the abortion can be bad for many reasons including this one.

    The writers were trying to show (and succeeding, in my opinion) that allowing women the choice has more benefits than drawbacks in terms of health and impact on society. This was one of many points they used to back up this idea.
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 1, 2005
    #106

  47. Saccharissa Stitcher

    [quote:61bac01857="Roman_K"]
    What I found appaling is not the data, but the suggestion that allowing abortions in stable families is good because the child might have mental issues.[/quote:61bac01857]

    You read it wrong. The mothers of unwanted children treat them as such and [i:61bac01857]cause[/i:61bac01857] mental issues. The links also mentioned malnutrition, instability in the family, abuse etc

    Children deserve to be born to parents who adore them. And it has been proven time and time again that when a woman wants to stop a pregnancy, she will. With any means necessary.
    Saccharissa, Nov 1, 2005
    #107

  48. Marcia Executive Onion

    If you have a problem killing something that feels pain, then you'd better not eat meat.

    I would say that a fetus doesn't become human until it begins to have higher brain functioning. (For example, the stage at which fetuses start dreaming in the womb--although dogs and cats seem to dream, so who knows?)
    Marcia, Nov 1, 2005
    #108

  49. Hsing Moderator

    They don't even necessary die in the process, but once they later have children, many of them have complications even then - with fatal consequences. In most middle american countries, the law is very strictly making any kind of abortion illegal.
    13 of 1000 women still have abortions (compare: in middle european countries, it's 8 of 1000). 20 % (!) of mothers' mortalitiy is an aftereffect of illegal abortions. Those dead mothers often leave other children who didn't have much of a perspective in the first place, and if nothing else (for those of you who think a woman that aborted does not deserve to live anyway) the state would have done them a huge favour if it had made some effort to keep those women alive. By allowing them legal, and safe, abortions.

    in El Salvador, for example, you can get 2 to 8 years prison for abortion, and due to this, many women suffering complications after an illegal abortion do not dare to seek mediacal help.

    The same goes for Peru, where 2000 women die each year after illegal abortions. You get sentences up to 2 years for abortion.

    In Bolivia, you are, theoretically, allowed to have an abortion when your life is in danger, or you have been raped. Still, right winged media and Catholic church succeeded in enforcing a judge's decision to keep an eleven year old girl from aborting, who had been raped by her stepfather.

    One of the reasons I have always been pro choice was always pragmatism.
    Hsing, Nov 1, 2005
    #109

  50. Pixel New Member

    [quote:8fc2e1965a="Buzzfloyd"]My personal working definition in this case is "when it could survive as a discrete entity". Like Hsing, I draw the line for abortions at the point where a baby could survive if it were born then (although there may always be exceptions, for example if there were medical complications).[/quote:8fc2e1965a]

    As I have already said, we all draw our lines - but there is still scope for interpretation - Grace, you say that your definition of a person is "when it could survive as a discrete entity" - OK - in what environment? By my definition, once the fertilized ovum has lodged in the womb, it is viable in the environment it needs for its current stage of development - then after birth it will be in a different environment but will still need a lot of support that it cannot give itself - why should it be susceptible to arbitrary extinction at one stage but not at the other?

    To go to the "reductio ad absurdem" (if my practically non-existant Latin is correct this means to reduce it to the absurd) we could look at a sketch which I think was from "Not the Nine O'Clock News" - if not , from a similar show, where a woman said to a doctor that she wanted an abortion and when asked "How many months is it?" she turned to the boy sitting next to her and said "How old are you now, son?"
    Pixel, Nov 2, 2005
    #110

  51. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:2fe40e2e82="Pixel"][quote:2fe40e2e82="Buzzfloyd"]My personal working definition in this case is "when it could survive as a discrete entity". Like Hsing, I draw the line for abortions at the point where a baby could survive if it were born then (although there may always be exceptions, for example if there were medical complications).[/quote:2fe40e2e82]

    As I have already said, we all draw our lines - but there is still scope for interpretation - Grace, you say that your definition of a person is "when it could survive as a discrete entity" - OK - in what environment? [/quote:2fe40e2e82]
    I meant outside of the womb, with medical assistance if necessary.
    Buzzfloyd, Nov 3, 2005
    #111
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page