SP ,
Sorry I'll just go back to my jw-mindlessness and forget what I've learned from the cruel natural realities. Getting educated really does threaten your spirituality.
Panda smiles
US anti-abortionist faces execution
by ignored_one 217 Replies latest social current
-
-
Abaddon
Yeru:
I don't know where to begin with you...
That much is painfully obvious.
Most abortions in the US are NOT done out of medical necesity..
Did I say they were? I think I made it clear that based upon the number of sexually active women and the effectiveness of various methods of birth control (i.e. methods that stop a pregnancy establishing), the % of women having an abortion each year makes it clear that the number of those using abortion IN PLACE OF OTHER BIRTH CONTROL is far less than those who utilise it due to failure of birth control. I can explain this AGAIN if you want.
thems is just the facts. I've not met one single woman who had an abortion because her life was in danger...I've met many who aborted because it was "inconvenient to be pregnant". I'm all for GOOD sex education which includes teaching abstinence...something Planned Parenthood opposses. Why is that.
Because there are models of sex education that work eight times better than the one currently en-vouge in the US perhaps, that not only reduces teen pregnancy massively but actually encourages people to delay first having sex.
Perhaps some people find the idea of developing a 'new shape of wheel' predicated upon a religious belief, when there are 'wheels' that work BETTER that do not enforce a certain (and demonstrably unrealistic) set of moral values rather ridiculous.
I say again, if the anti-choicers really cared about reducing abortion dramatically they would adopt European-style sex education. But their opposition to abortion is apparently less important than their desire to enforce their own moral values on young people. Sad, isn't it? 200,000 extra abortions a year caused by the (mostly) the religious right's opposition to realistic and comprehensive sex education.
This 12 week old "blob of tissue" is a distinct human life with it's own DNA profile. Why do you have such a hard time grasping this?
Nice avoidance of the points I raised - not. Do you think if you ignore them they will go away?
I assume as you have no response you accept that human lives are NOT equal in value. In the example I gave concerning a foxhole you would carry a man with a leg injury to safety leaving the man with the head injury. You would do so on the basis that the one with the leg injury had more chance, and that the one who was probably suffering from severe brain trauma would not really recover properly even if you got him to medical aid.
This of course would be an assumption; the guy with the leg wound could bleed out and die on your back, and the guy with the head wound might be lucky and not suffer significant disablement due to their head injury.
But you would let the one who looked like he had no brain activity die.
If you would differentiate between lives on grounds of perceived brain activity, why do you criticise someone doing exactly the same thing? Don't you think it's a little hypocritical on your part to allow a soldier in battle a right that you believe a pregnant woman should not have?
Whether a 12 week-old foetus has its own DNA or not is simply not pertinent to whether it is the same (as you claim) as a new born baby.
Just as you would carry the man with the greater potential for a good life to safety and let the other die, so too people decide that it is better to carry a baby to term if it has a chance of a good life. If there are circumstances that would prevent this, as there is no equivalence in neurological complexity to a new born, or even a pet rat, it's completely moral to abort a foetus throughout the first trimester and into the second trimester.
With a decent health system and good sex education the number of non-medical abortions required later than that would be small, and I see no reason why the upper limit shouldn't come down somewhat - but only if the provision of heath services was sufficient to prevent women seeking an early abortion being 'timed out' by waiting for the procedure.
As I think I've demonstrated, human lives are NOT equal in value. This means that, if the mother's life is threatened, unless she wish otherwise, if a termination is neccesary to preserve her life it should be legal throughout the pregnancy.
But, your beliefs are based on faith Yeru. This gives you the big advantage of them being very hard to disprove, as they are based on the assured expectation of things not yet perceived. It's hard to disprove something that isn;t there as the argument amongst those with faith is that it is, but you can't see it, or it shall be or was. However, you have the disadvantage of not being able to prove your beliefs with facts, as they are based on faith.
You oppose abortion not because of any scientific or social argument, but because you believe in the sanctity of all human life due to them having souls. Obviously as you can't see a soul you must assume it's either there or not, which means you have a complete human soul somehow anchored to a clump of cells.
You avoid answering the inconvenient question of 'what about all the millions of fertilsed eggs with their unique DNA that the bodies of women reject each year', as you have no answer to why nature would be so cavalier with human souls. Hell, still-births account for about 500 in 100,000 births; how does that fit in with your superstition? You refuse to accept human lives are of different value, despite the fact you would evaluate between the value of two human lives if you needed to.
A baby has a soul so a foetus has a soul so an embryo has a soul and therefore they all all equal and you mustn't kill any is a statement of faith.
You're entitled to live you life in accord with that faith, but have no right to impose your religious beliefs on another. If voodoo practioners tried to impose their beliefs on you you would be incandescent with rage. Why the double standard? A voodoo practitioner bases their beliefs on exactly what you base yours on. Faith. Yet yours are okay to impose on people and a voodoo practitioners are not! Your faith that there is something divine and sacrosant about a fertilised egg is as much rooted in superstition as a voodoo practitioners method of petitioning spirits by spittng a spray of alcohol over a religious image.
Mercurious?
You can be with Yeru, I would no more force you to have an abortion than allow you to prevent me having one. But it would be nice if you actually had your own argument as regards WHY abortion is wrong as Yeru doesn't have one accept from his faith-based viewpoint, and we live in a society where imposing your faith on others is considered unwarranted fundamentalism.
Oh, and I think unless you re-establish slavery and abolish women's rights, you will find you have as much right to control over eggs, fertilised or not, in a woman's body as women have rights to control the sperm in your balls. At the point of orgasm, you lose the rights to your sperm. If you don't like that, don't have sex; afetr all abstinence is a very effective way of avoiding pregnancy! Your argument would mean a man could also force a woman to have an abortion to avoid child maintenance, and that a woman could demand her husband have sperm extracted from him if he refused to have children with her.
Englishman;
Ta matey!
Stinky;
Add 'other than in self-defence' after killing if you want; I would think that was obvious, but I demand semantic rigour so should give the same I suppose. Loved your point about war to Yeru by the way; babies don't count during war, do they? And I love the way you smack Yiz for being a misogynist... don't do it too hard as he might enjoy it...
Yiz;
Since some folks takes offense with the word, "baby murderers" pretty much tells me someone has a guilty conscience and doesn't wanna think about or even acknowledge that the child is a baby when it's being butchered.
Look American Taliban, baby means an an extremely young child and is synonymous with infant. Thus calling someone who is pro-choice, or even a doctor who carries out abortions a baby murder is just wrong.
I would encourage you to learn more about the Emglish language, but realise you know perfectly well what baby means, and are just behaving like a cultist and using loaded language for the purposes of propoganda.
By your twisted and perverted language and logic, you and other members of the religious right are accesories to the murder of over 200,000 babies (that's a quarter of all abortions in the USA) a year that would not happen if you didn't support a religously predicated curriculum of sex edication, but you don't care about that as imposing your beliefs on others is your desire and the prevention of abortion is only secondary to that, no matter how you might like it to appear.
Just like the religious hypocrite Jesus spoke of in the story of the good Samaritan, you give the appearance of sanctity, but 'cross the road' when you could obviously give aid to someone due to prejudice of belief. Nice...
And would you please try and treat a woman like a human being first and foremost? Your ridiculous fawning and salivating over a woman, and apologies for debating with her just because she's an attractive women strike new hights of patheticness.
Oh, and here's a few facts for you... nasty inconvenient facts... in developing countries unsafe abortions have a fatality rate of 330 per 100,000, rising to 680 per 100,000 in Africa. depending on region. This comprises some 64% of maternal mortality of those who were unintentionally pregnant.
On the other hand, average mortailty rates in developed countries where abortion is legal are 0.6 per 100,000 legal abortions in the USA; rates per 100,000 for other countries are; Canada, 0.1; Netherlands, 0.2; England and Wales, 0.4; Denmark, 0.5; Finland, 0.7; and Scotland, 1.0 per 100,000 legal abortions.
This compares with a maternal mortailty rate of 400 per 100,000 globally, rising to 1,000 per 100,0000 for Africa and dropping to between 11 and 28 per 100,000 for the developed world.
Thus one can see with legal abortion and decent heath facilities it is between 18 and 56 times (possibly more) safer to have an abortion that to give birth.
Yet again Yiz, as with your little attempt at panic mongering over the permiability of condoms to the HIV virus I shot down in flames some time ago, you distort facts or present entirely fictional data to supoort your case.
How Christian is that? Is lying part of your theorcratic warfare stratagy, or are you incapable of checking your facts before you attempt to deceive people with them??
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsabortion.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecosoc/hl2002/ECOSOC2002Health.pdfOh, I'd love you to reply, but since you ran away from the debate the last time I showed you to be using distorted or downright false facts to 'prove' your point, I don;t expect you will.
Panda;
I disagree over the death penalty but that was a good post.
-
funkyderek
So you think "end justifies means" is a rational argument?
It can be, but not necessarily. It's certainly not always a moral one, even when it's rational.
And are you saying that killing someone is the only way to make sure that a person won't repeat a crime?
No, but it's a way, and it's 100% effective. There are very good rational/scientific reasons for doing this. You need to address those rather than just dismissing them.
What about restricting a persons access to other people by keeping them behind bars? Life means life - sentences.
There you go. That's an alternative. If you expand it a bit, you've got an argument. Hint: consider relative costs of imprisonment versus execution, possibility of rehabilitation, learning from criminal behaviour etc.
I repeat - there is no rational/scientific argument FOR the death penalty.
D'oh! You've done it again. Back to a sweeping blanket statement that ignores some very cogent arguments in favour of the death penalty.
Closure, deterrence, revenge, are all semantically rooted in bad religion and out-moted psyhcological theories.
Possibly they are, and again you're getting close to actually making a point that could generate a discussion. You'd need to expand the point further but you're heading in the right direction.
-
funkyderek
You know what Derek I have discussions with lots of people in the real world and on forums daily without being put under the microscope
OK, but if you make a statement on a discussion board, especially about a controversial topic, you should be prepared to defend your argument, because it's going to be scrutinised.
I find that there are people on this website who resort to name calling and personal attacks if you disagree with them in the least.
I hope you're not including me in that list. I try to attack the argument rather than the person who makes it. If I have done otherwise, I apologise.
Now your suggestion that either I face my posts being examined or keep quiet is interesting in itself. Last night I was called a drama queen, naive, young and someone who doesn't get it. All comments in my mind were said as to be insulting. I have also been told that if I believe that abortion is murder then I should be willing to kill to stop it.
I don't think you're a drama queen, and my comment wasn't meant to be insulting although I admit it's fairly blunt. My point was simply that if you state an opinion on any discussion board, the chances are that someone will disagree. This board is perhaps more disagreeable than most because many of us here have gone through the process of examining everything we've been told. I wasn't suggesting that you should either accept being insulted or shut up, nor did I try to label you with beliefs you don't hold. I merely asked a couple of questions.
I think that a lot of people here are rude and do not want an opposing opinion. I have stated my opinions to be only that, opinions. I have not told anyone they are wrong in any of their beliefs. I find others opinions to be interesting and I always consider what they have to offer. I don't see that happening here. If you are not liberal then watch out.
I find other people's opinions interesting too, but if I consider them to be flawed, I'm going to say so. I found your argument that abortion is murder, but may be acceptable if the mother has been raped, to be inconsistent, and I questioned you on it. I sometimes tell people they are wrong in their beliefs if they are flat-out wrong. And I provide evidence to support my assertions. More often, I just ask questions. Sometimes the answers to these questions clear up the apparent inconsistencies, sometimes they generate further discussion.
And don't worry, you don't have to be "liberal" to post here. There are plenty of conservative and even ultra-conservative posters here.
Now lest I come off as a drama queen let me say that my feelings are not hurt. There is no one here that I know, I have no family or friends here, I'm just a visitor so I really don't mind being examined. I just find the general tone of this forum to be ruder than it needs to be and rudeness appears to be tolerated.
I think you're mistaking a free exchange of opinions for rudeness. While in the Watchtower, we couldn't express differing opinions. Most people like being able to do so here. But personal attacks are not tolerated and will be dealt with by the moderators. If you feel the forum rules have been violated, then email Simon and he will swiftly dispense justice.
Anyway Stacy, welcome to the board. I hope you'll get used to our ways and stick around.
-
StinkyPantz
Abaddon -
Loved your point about war to Yeru by the way; babies don't count during war, do they?
Did you notice that even though I asked it like three times, he didn't answer? Hmmmm. . .
-
funkyderek
Is having unique human DNA the criterion that decides whether something (should read SOMEONE) has human rights?
Ummm...that's a pretty darn good starting spot...otherwise...who knows...maybe the sick and elderly don't have human rights. If this isn't the starting point...then there is no clear starting point, and all are in jeopardy.I presume you mean diploid DNA, or do you hold to the fundamentalist Catholic view that "every sperm is sacred"? I'm not sure why having unique human DNA should be a criterion. What about identical twins? Is it OK to abort one of them? How "human" does the DNA have to be? Is 98.6% enough? Do chimpanzees therefore have the same rights? Does a blob of human tissue kept alive in a petri dish have full human rights?
Another criterion that could be used is the existence of brain waves. When a human is determined to be brain dead, life support is normally stopped, despite that human having unique DNA. A foetus shows no evidence of neural activity till somewhere around 24 weeks of development. Maybe that should be trhe cutoff point.
-
drwtsn32
And would you please try and treat a woman like a human being first and foremost? Your ridiculous fawning and salivating over a woman, and apologies for debating with her just because she's an attractive women strike new hights of patheticness.
Abaddon: I really enjoyed the entirety of your comments but I wanted to highlight the above... I couldn't agree more! It was insulting to Tink's intelligence and a lame attempt to distract from the real argument by using pathetic flattery.
-
Trauma_Hound
Ya well he insulted a few people, thusly my comment about the hooker. What gives him the right as a man, to say anything about what a woman does with her body? I personally don't agree with abortion, but I do support the right of the woman to make her own decision on what she does, with her own body. If you don't like that, then move to China, because your acting like a commie dictator.
-
obiwan
What gives him the right as a man, to say anything about what a woman does with her body? I personally don't agree with abortion, but I do support the right of the woman to make her own decision on what she does, with her own body. If you don't like that, then move to China, because your acting like a commie dictator.
So, Trauma, you would have no problem with it, even if it was your child she was aborting? This, to me, is the only sticky point in the argument that men do not have a say in what a woman does to her body.
If a woman that I had been with is pregnant, you better believe I will have something to say about it. When it comes to sex, I believe, if your gonna play, you better be able to pay....and not with the childs life.
-
Mecurious?
Abandon:
You can be with Yeru, I would no more force you to have an abortion than allow you to prevent me having one. But it would be nice if you actually had your own argument as regards WHY abortion is wrong as Yeru doesn't have one accept from his faith-based viewpoint, and we live in a society where imposing your faith on others is considered unwarranted fundamentalism.
Oh High and mighty Abandon I beg your forgiveness; I forgot that you are all knowing and all powerful. Otherwise, maybe you ought to try reading all of what I wrote and answer to the issues that I raise.
I already stated why I have a problem with abortion. I never said that I’m completely against it in every scenario. I believe a man should have a say so if it’s his sperm. After all if a woman decides to have a child after a one-night stand where the condom broke the man would still be required to pay child support.
Oh, and I think unless you re-establish slavery and abolish women's rights, you will find you have as much right to control over eggs, fertilised or not, in a woman's body as women have rights to control the sperm in your balls. At the point of orgasm, you lose the rights to your sperm. If you don't like that, don't have sex; afetr all abstinence is a very effective way of avoiding pregnancy! Your argument would mean a man could also force a woman to have an abortion to avoid child maintenance, and that a woman could demand her husband have sperm extracted from him if he refused to have children with her.
True but I find this to be utterly ridiculous, as I have known cases where the man didn’t want children, but the women did and she had conspired (against his wishes) and had a child anyway. The man now pays child support. Why don’t men have more of a say so when it’s their sperm involved? I think men should. Surely you are aware that even married men have virtually no say in this matter:
"The first reported case that went to the courts in the UK was in May 1978. In the case Paton v Trustees of BPAS and Paton, William Paton, a steelworker living in Liverpool, failed in his attempt to prevent his estranged wife Joan having an abortion. The judge, the Rt. Hon. Sir George Baker, President of the Family Division of the court, ruled that the claim for an injunction to prevent the abortion 'is completely misconceived and must be dismissed'. Paton also failed in his attempt to gain a ruling in his favour before the European Court of Human Rights which denied his application for a hearing. "
Is there perhaps something in the argument from those men whose appeal is based on the fact that they have to look after children when they are born against their wishes so they should be allowed to have a say whether they are born at all? And is it not entirely legitimate and logically coherent to say that in such cases there should be absolutely no legal or financial comeback on those men?
Right on obiwan;
So, Trauma, you would have no problem with it, even if it was your child she was aborting? This, to me, is the only sticky point in the argument that men do not have a say in what a woman does to her body.
If a woman that I had been with is pregnant, you better believe I will have something to say about it. When it comes to sex, I believe, if your gonna play, you better be able to pay....and not with the childs life.
This is the point that I’m trying to make men should fight for their rights!...
Merc'