by Quincy 123 Replies latest social relationships
I would be interested to know where you got that number from.
Even at a 20% success rate, that is not minimal. If someone was on life support and they had a 20% chance of coming out of it in 9 months or less, I think they would deserve that chance to live
If someone was on life support and they had a 20% chance of coming out of it in 9 months or less, I think they would deserve that chance to live
Perhaps, but would you be obligated to provide them with somewhere to live in the meantime?
I would be interested to know where you got that number from.
The 60%-80% number is commonly accepted, and available at many sites, including:
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic6.htm
Where we read:
Many pregnancies are not viable, with an estimated loss of 50% before the first missed menstrual period. These pregnancies usually are not clinically recognized. Classic spontaneous abortion is defined as a clinically recognized (ie, by blood test, ultrasound) pregnancy loss before the 20th week of gestation. Spontaneous abortion occurs in an estimated 10-15% of pregnancies.
And, later:
Age and increased parity affect the risk of a miscarriage. Twelve percent of pregnancies terminate in miscarriage in women younger than 20 years; frequency increases to 26% in women older than 20 years.
So, about 60-65% of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, rising to 76% for women over 20.
This, to say the least, presents something of a crisis for fundies.
I mean, how can you justify a loving god that cherishes all human life with the creation of a system that results in the 'murder' (as said fundies would have it) of up to 76% of all humans right off the bat?
Either a fetus does NOT have a soul from the moment of conception, and thus does not need the amount of protection under law, etc., that an adult receives. Or, it DOES, and 'god' has designed a woman's reproductive systems as a baby butchering factory. (I realize how awful that sounds, and I apologize in advance to any who are offended - but it DOES accurately describe the situation).
To all here who think it is incumbent upon Quincy to change his girlfriend's mind about the abortion:
Quincy's girlfriend should not be subjected to pressure from anyone on this issue. Quincy has made his viewpoint clear to her, and he ought to butt out of what amounts to a personal decision for her. It isn't Quincy who will have to experience the physical risks and pains of labor, and it isn't Quincy who will likely be stuck with the child in the event their relationship doesn't work out.
Quincy, you made a mistake, and now you've tried to put a guilt trip on your girlfriend because her ideas on how to deal with it differ from yours. Your irresponsibility created the problem, and you ought to be more considerate of your girlfriend, because in my opinion, the situation is entirely your fault. Hopefully you'll learn from this mistake and become more responsible in the future.
Editing: Additions are underlined, deletions are struck through.
One other point for Quincy, if you have trouble paying for the cost of an abortion, how do you expect to be able to support a child?
Edited by - 144001 on 15 August 2002 17:57:38
Perhaps, but would you be obligated to provide them with somewhere to live in the meantime?
Yes...if I was responsible for their condition. I believe a mother and father of a fetus are responsible for the condition of that fetus.
Where we read:
Many pregnancies are not viable, with an estimated loss of 50% before the first missed menstrual period. These pregnancies usually are not clinically recognized. Classic spontaneous abortion is defined as a clinically recognized (ie, by blood test, ultrasound) pregnancy loss before the 20th week of gestation. Spontaneous abortion occurs in an estimated 10-15% of pregnancies.And, later:
Age and increased parity affect the risk of a miscarriage. Twelve percent of pregnancies terminate in miscarriage in women younger than 20 years; frequency increases to 26% in women older than 20 years.So, about 60-65% of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, rising to 76% for women over 20.
Thank you for posting your references, that is always appreciated. However, it says that 50% are lost before the first missed menstrual period, which is generally before a mother ever knows she is pregnant. I don't see how this can be include in a discussion about a parent's decision on abortion. That 50% is obviously never in need of an abortion. So the group we are referring to are those that make it past that point. According to your information, this would only mean about 26% are lost.
But besides all of that, even if 75% were lost. If there is a 25% chance that the fetus will survive, it is my personal belief that the parents are responsible for that. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way, so we end up with a world full of unwanted children, bad parenting, abortions, etc.
how can you justify a loving god
I thought we were talking about abortion? How did justifying a loving god come into this? The answer is I can't and I don't even try.
Either a fetus does NOT have a soul from the moment of conception, and thus does not need the amount of protection under law, etc., that an adult receives. Or, it DOES, and 'god' has designed a woman's reproductive systems as a baby butchering factory.
Either it does or it doesn't? Says who? How about either it does, or it doesn't, or we'll never know. You are looking for an answer to an unanswerable question to justify the abortion of life. Since that answer is not available it is no excuse for aborting life. And brain waves have nothing to do with a soul.
144001 -
and he ought to butt out of what amounts to a personal decision for her. It isn't Quincy who will have to experience the physical risks and pains of labor, and it isn't Quincy who will likely be stuck with the child in the event their relationship doesn't work out.
That is pure CRAP! What are you, from Berkeley? He should butt out of her personal decision? It takes two to tango. It took both a male and female to create the pregnancy, the life result is a product of both of them. They are BOTH involved in the decision. For a woman to take complete control of the situation because it is her body is IMMORAL (understanding there are plenty of cases this is necessary due to loser men.) But in a case where the father is ready to take complete responsibility, I think he has every right to be involved with the decision.
Your irresponsibility created the problem, and you ought to be more considerate of your girlfriend, because in my opinion, the situation is entirely your fault.What are you, a Femi-Nazi? Where was the mother in all of this? Completely innocent? Unless a woman is raped, she is just as responsible for the situation. How dare you try and put the blame on the father alone. It is the responsiblity of both the male AND the female, to either abstain from sex, have safe sex, or take responsibility for the result of their willingly having sex.
Edited by - amac on 16 August 2002 11:53:58
which is generally before a mother ever knows she is pregnant. I don't see how this can be include in a discussion about a parent's decision on abortion. That 50% is obviously never in need of an abortion
I don't even understand what you are saying here. How does the mother knowing she is pregnant or not change the fact that a conceived fetus dies?
Either it does or it doesn't? Says who? How about either it does, or it doesn't, or we'll never know. You are looking for an answer to an unanswerable question to justify the abortion of life.
No, I'm drawing a parallel. Unless you are an absolute atheist, you must believe some higher power had SOMETHING to do with the presence of humanity in its current form, and is thus at least partially responsible for our reproduction and, specifically, the soul and afterlife.
My point was that, if the 'soul' is granted at conception, then we are designed remarkably poorly, since 60-76% of all souls die before even being born.
I maintain that this is ridiculous, no 'god' would grant a soul at the point in a being's development when there was still an 60-76% chance of dying before being born! Would it not be more logical to conclude this does not happen until later - say, the 24th week. The point where we DO start seing brain waves. And at which point a fetus that survived that long has something like a 95% chance of being born?
Since that answer is not available it is no excuse for aborting life.
I'm sorry, this is just too much. 'If it doesn't make sense, you must acquit'?!?
And brain waves have nothing to do with a soul.
Mind suggesting what you think DOES, then? Keeping in mind my above comments.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. How does the mother knowing she is pregnant or not change the fact that a conceived fetus dies?
Besides we were talking about it in the context of whether or not it is ok to have abortions. Since the 50% you are referring to are before an abortion are ever considered, they can't really be figured into the equation. In other words, when a couple considers abortion, what are the chances of survival of the fetus at that time. According to your information, they have about 75% chance of making it.
No, I'm drawing a parallel. Unless you are an absolute atheist, you must believe some higher power had SOMETHING to do with the presence of humanity in its current form, and is thus at least partially responsible for our reproduction and, specifically, the soul and afterlife.
My point was that, if the 'soul' is granted at conception, then we are designed remarkably poorly, since 60-76% of all souls die before even being born.
I maintain that this is ridiculous, no 'god' would grant a soul at the point in a being's development when there was still an 60-76% chance of dying before being born! Would it not be more logical to conclude this does not happen until later - say, the 24th week. The point where we DO start seing brain waves. And at which point a fetus that survived that long has something like a 95% chance of being born?
I never said the soul is "granted" at conception. Personally, I don't think that self-awareness, or a soul comes into play until some time during infancy. My point has always been that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how brain dead or unaware a fetus is. The fact that it is a human life that will progress into fully aware human is enough for me to see that it is deserving of this life. Just like an infant...a newborn is useless, it can't do anything for itself, it can't communicate, they can't even smile yet, all they can do is scream. How does a newborn infant differ from an animal? It doesn't, however everyone recognizes that it has a right to life because it will grow into a self-aware, conscious human. I see no difference between a newborn and a fetus.
I'm sorry, this is just too much. 'If it doesn't make sense, you must acquit'?!?
No, but the reverse...you can't speculate on something and then use it as a reason to terminate life. You are taking a stab at when the soul appears and then using that as a basis for whether or not a fetus deserves life. However, as stated above, I don't think it should even be relevant to the right to life.
Mind suggesting what you think DOES, then? Keeping in mind my above comments.Well, geez, most animals have brain waves, that doesn't constitute being self-aware. I'm not sure when it happens. I don't think newborn infants are self-aware...but again, I don't think it even matters in the discussion of abortion.
To ACRACK head:
That is pure CRAP! What are you, from Berkeley? He should butt out of her personal decision? It takes two to tango. It took both a male and female to create the pregnancy, the life result is a product of both of them. They are BOTH involved in the decision. For a woman to take complete control of the situation because it is her body is IMMORAL (understanding there are plenty of cases this is necessary due to loser men.) But in a case where the father is ready to take complete responsibility, I think he has every right to be involved with the decision.
No, moron, I'm not from Berkely, but I respect folks in Berkely much more than fundamentalist right wing zealots like you who take it upon themself to attempt to impose their view of morality on others. It may indeed take two to tango, but the man is in the position to control his own fluids and the places they end up at. If he was responsible, he would have used a condom or had enough physical control to prevent his blue-veined hooligan from relinquishing its products at the wrong time.
You are from the old school of thought, where women were nothing but chattel. Your neanderthal view is that men should be able to impose their will on women, notwithstanding the fact that such will is likely to impose a great deal of pain and even the risk of death on the woman. You and your fascist right wing bible thumper ilk - like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swaggart, ought to move to a country with a totalitarian form of government where you can feel at home with the rest of the right wing extremists. Or better yet, why don't you go to a kingdom hall where your views will be consistent with others?
What are you, a Femi-Nazi?
Ha ha, moron, is that the best you can do is copy slogans from a fat idiot? I've responded to your ad hominem arguments in kind. You are an idiot, and that is why you know of no other way to get your point across other than to make personal attacks on those who don't share your limited-minded viewpoints. It's usually the case that those who attempt to impose their views of morality on others are the ones who are really into the kinky stuff, like bestiality. Is that your situation?
144001 -
You are a class act!
For starters, I am far from a right wing zealot. I am no more imposing my view points on others than you are. I have never argued about the legality of abortion, just the morality.but I respect folks in Berkely much more than fundamentalist right wing zealots like you who take it upon themself to attempt to impose their view of morality on others.
Again, is the woman asleep through this whole process? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. It seems that YOU are the one with the "old school" way of "neanderthal" thinking if you think that women should be so powerless and submissive to have no say in what a man does to them. She has a voice and a brain, she needs to use them rather than just place the blame. If she doesn't want his "fluids" in her, then she need to say so and not just lay there and get mad after the fact. The woman rolls the dice just as much as the man. If she knows she does not want to go through a pregnancy, then she should either abstain or take preventive measures. And the man should also be responsible for his part and do the same.It may indeed take two to tango, but the man is in the position to control his own fluids and the places they end up at. If he was responsible, he would have used a condom or had enough physical control to prevent his blue-veined hooligan from relinquishing its products at the wrong time.
No, my view is that it is a decision to be considered by all parties involved, male and female. Your view seems to be that it should just be the female. I say that if it took two to create the situation, those same two need to figure out how to handle it and take everything into consideration, including health risks.Your neanderthal view is that men should be able to impose their will on women, notwithstanding the fact that such will is likely to impose a great deal of pain and even the risk of death on the woman.
Ha Ha! Who ever said I believed in the bible? I'm certainly not a bible thumper, although I have studied it quite a bit.You and your fascist right wing bible thumper ilk
I'm sorry, I didn't realize he coined that term as I don't listen to him.Ha ha, moron, is that the best you can do is copy slogans from a fat idiot?
I've responded to your ad hominem arguments in kind. You are an idiot, and that is why you know of no other way to get your point across other than to make personal attacks on those who don't share your limited-minded viewpoints. It's usually the case that those who attempt to impose their views of morality on others are the ones who are really into the kinky stuff, like bestiality. Is that your situation?
Because I called you a Femi-Nazi my post is ad hominem? I just read my post again and I clearly stated my argument. It was far from an "ad hominem" attack. You on the other hand have done nothing but call me names and insinuate that I am into BESTIALITY!!!!! You have no argument besides repeating that it is the man's fault (with no reasoning as to why it is solely his fault) and calling me names. You are hypocritical. My view has been stated above, both in this post and throughout the entire thread.
One other point for Quincy, if you have trouble paying for the cost of an abortion, how do you expect to be able to support a child?
And in defense of Quincy, I don't think he had a problem with the dollar amount. He had a problem with the matter of paying for something he doesn't agree with. I could be wrong, but that is the feeling I got.
