Abortion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:49:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Abortion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28
Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 59836 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: January 25, 2004, 05:03:02 PM »

FLGOP - what about rape? Do you support abortion in those cases?
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: January 25, 2004, 06:17:15 PM »

I can't decide what I should to address first. Perhaps I'll do it a la carte.

I will start with your views on poverty. I will agree that contraception is more cost effective than abortion. However, it is significantly less effective than abortion. If you use natural contraception, the rate of failure can be 30%. So, if a woman is pregnant, it is cheaper for the government to pay for an abortion than a lifetime of welfare entitlements and pre and post natal care.

Also, a society's standards of poverty are of course defined by one's surroundings. One who might be wealthy in Mozambique could constitute a member of the underclass here. If the levels of affluence and poverty are of comparable variance, the significantly more secure person in America can suffer equal psychological trauma based upon class resentment.

To say abortion shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money is silly. I oppose most of our defense spending. Does that entitle me to insist that we cut off funding for national security and in addition allow me to refuse to pay my taxes?

Your attempt to link Dred Scott with the disregard for common law precedent is factually incorrect. While not overturned by the Supreme Court, the decision was invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment. Yet, the Eisenstadt decision is still alive and well as binding precedent. It is frequently cited by the Supreme Court in privacy disputes.

Finally, I cannot see your gender equality argument's premise. What I think it says is that men and women can use their abilities equally to fend off conception. But this has nothing to do with actual gender equality theory. It can be best described as the distant edge of the parabola of the plane of standard egalitarian thought.

And one correction, nclib. The petitioner in Roe v. Wade did not raise her child. Her mother did, at a considerable hardship for an aged woman.
Logged
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: January 25, 2004, 08:40:15 PM »

As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion

In Roe, she was forced to have her child because the case took too long. I'm sure having to raise that child after all had an impact on her viewpoint on abortion. Anyway, Roe v. Wade was not about her--it was about the issue in general.

Actually, that child was latter put up for adoption, she herself did not take care of it.
Logged
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: January 25, 2004, 08:45:25 PM »

If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

I don't support this line of reasoning because women obviously are more affected by pregnancy than men are. Both men and women should be responsible for their choices, but there certainly are fewer consequences for a man who has unprotected sex. Legalized abortion is just a way to compensate for that and help achieve gender equality.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but women have the power to say no.  That is one thing feminism is right about, that women have power just like men.  It, in my view, is somewhat discriminatory against women to believe (I hope I am not placing any words in anyone's mouth) that they have sex to a large extent because of the desires of males.
Logged
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: January 25, 2004, 09:09:48 PM »

I can't decide what I should to address first. Perhaps I'll do it a la carte.

I will start with your views on poverty. I will agree that contraception is more cost effective than abortion. However, it is significantly less effective than abortion. If you use natural contraception, the rate of failure can be 30%. So, if a woman is pregnant, it is cheaper for the government to pay for an abortion than a lifetime of welfare entitlements and pre and post natal care.

Also, a society's standards of poverty are of course defined by one's surroundings. One who might be wealthy in Mozambique could constitute a member of the underclass here. If the levels of affluence and poverty are of comparable variance, the significantly more secure person in America can suffer equal psychological trauma based upon class resentment.

To say abortion shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money is silly. I oppose most of our defense spending. Does that entitle me to insist that we cut off funding for national security and in addition allow me to refuse to pay my taxes?

Your attempt to link Dred Scott with the disregard for common law precedent is factually incorrect. While not overturned by the Supreme Court, the decision was invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment. Yet, the Eisenstadt decision is still alive and well as binding precedent. It is frequently cited by the Supreme Court in privacy disputes.

Finally, I cannot see your gender equality argument's premise. What I think it says is that men and women can use their abilities equally to fend off conception. But this has nothing to do with actual gender equality theory. It can be best described as the distant edge of the parabola of the plane of standard egalitarian thought.

And one correction, nclib. The petitioner in Roe v. Wade did not raise her child. Her mother did, at a considerable hardship for an aged woman.

Natural contraception has a high failure rate, granted.  But people can buy condoms, diaphragms, and spermicidal jelly.  The failure rate of each is very, very small.

As you can probably guess, I am against entitlements.  I would suggest that the father get a job, as well as the mother, and once the child comes of age he can also get a part time job.  They also have to live without some of the excesses of modern life.  Television is not necessary, nor are VCRs, camcorders, DVD players, etc.  If they make small sacrifices, and work hard, they can move up the economic latter.  There is no need for a lifetime of welfare entitlements.

If a person in America feels some sort trauma due to class resentment, I have an idea that's so radical that it may actually work: I propse the person do something about it rather than just complain about the system.  Work is available to those that look.  A major problem with the developing American view to work is that there are certain jobs that are beneath them, and this is hogwash.

In fact, you can argue that defense spending should be cut, as I argue that social spending should be cut.  Whether any of the cutting actually takes place is another issue.  We all have a right to our opinions and to voice them.  I, however, do pay my taxes, and regardless of whether I agree with what the government does with it I still must pay them.

As for my writing about Dred Scott, there is nothing factually incorrect about my statement.  It was never overturned by the courts.  It became a moot point after the Civil War with the passage of the 13th Amendment, which I had alluded to in my second posting in this thread.

I mentioned other cases because of the fact that the ruling in one overturned the ruling in another.  Again this is because stare decisis is not as strong as it once was.  There is absolutely nothing that can stop the court from hearing a case where the Eisenstadt decision is overturned.  There have been several Supreme Court rulings that have narrowed Roe v Wade, and there is nothing to either prevent overturning those previous rulings or placing greater restrictions placed on Roe v Wade (other than who sits on the court).

I wasn't arguing that both genders have an equal ability to fend of contraception, but rather that women have more power.  She can wear a diaphragm, use spermicidal jelly, or not have sex with a particular male if he refuses to use protection.  We are so much more than just carnal creatures seeking instant gratification.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: January 25, 2004, 09:45:24 PM »

To Beet, thanks for your welcome.  However, I see things somewhat differently.  Members of one species may arise only from members of the same species.  It is impossible for two humans to mate and produce a calf, or any other animal, as an offspring.  If we are humans now, it is because we have been humans at every stage of our development.

Physical attachment in and of itself does not exclude individuality.  The best visual example of this would be Siamese twins.  Yes, they are physically attached, and sometimes separation may kill one or both of the twins.  As to the debate on whether it is one individual or two, the original Siamese twins had two different personalities, each one had a wife, and each one fathered children.

FLGOP, we agree on these issues. The taxonomy of homo sapien is quite clear. Also, I don't think viability is the main issue in determing what's a "life" and what's not. Although I'm not too familiar with the Supreme Court's reasoning on viability, I don't see how it could be the deciding criteria.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this is a little tautological. If I don't believe a fetus before a certain point is a moral life, then a pregnant woman is one person with another heartbeat and EEG waves inside of her.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

People misunderstand the consciousness-based criterion. Firstly, using the existence of a mind (something that "judges" value) does not mean the mind must be conscious at all times. A mind can be turned off (in a coma), but still have the capability of being revived, maybe after years. The point is that once a human mind is created, it is a life until it turns off for the last time. For abortion the question is when is the mind first created?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to generalize "walking" into freedom of mobility, you can also generalize "abortion" into controlling one's own body. The best argument against abortion is not that it's universally inapplicable; circumcism isn't either- but that it involves more than one moral life.

Finally, regarding stare decisis, I'm not saying the law can't be overturned but that it hasn't been overturned. Therefore based on CURRENT law, the decision stands. Of course it is always possible to argue contradictions in the myriad of cases that have been decided out there.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: January 28, 2004, 12:52:22 PM »

And one correction, nclib. The petitioner in Roe v. Wade did not raise her child. Her mother did, at a considerable hardship for an aged woman.

Actually, that child [Roe's child] was latter put up for adoption, she herself did not take care of it.

Thanks for the correction. I apologize for the error. I still think, however, that Roe giving birth to that child put her in an uncomfortable position regarding her stance on abortion.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: March 11, 2004, 08:58:15 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The blueprints for the mind are there, it simply hasn't grown. There isn't a period where the mind suddenly is created. THe mind is always growing, and if there is any period where the mind has reached "full growth" potential, it is far after birth. Sure, the zygote doesn't have a mind, but it is growing one, it has the blue prints. Further, the literal meaning of "unconscious" is "without mind". When in a coma, you are literally without mind. Questions when the person had is irrelevent. The point is if the person has the capability of having a mind, and in this case the fetus is fully capable of having a mind.  
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: March 11, 2004, 09:33:31 PM »

I don't particularly care about abortion It is a terrible thing to get an abortion, but it is better than bringing children who will be poorly cared for into this country. I am radically opposed to the religious right, who try to set their own moral code on others. My anti-religion views are definitely a key factor in my viewpoint on abortion. I think stem cell research should be less restricted, and we are doing ourselves a lot of harm by slowing down the process.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: March 11, 2004, 09:58:08 PM »

Morality isn't a religious code. It's a natural, human code. I mean, if there were no morality, people would be committing murder, rape, poligamy, incest, et cetera. Obviously, people religious and not believe these things are wrong.  Abortion isn't merely wrong because it's unnatural contreception, it's immoral because it's killing the life of an innocent child, who can feel the pain.  
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: March 12, 2004, 03:53:10 PM »

Tell us that, Brambilla, when you're the victim of rape and are forced by an activist federal government to bring a child into the world. Can you imagine the moral horror of a woman with an unwanted fetus, feeding off every sinew of her body, growing larger by the day, beneath her heart? I can't. The sad fact is that your morality cares little for the desperation faced by many women, the bondage that their reproductive capacity shackles them into without their consent. Perhaps when you exult a fetus, you malign and show no mercy for the lives of women.
Logged
FLGOP
Rookie
**
Posts: 15


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: March 12, 2004, 04:41:40 PM »

migrendel,

How does having an abortion erase the fact that the woman was raped.  If she does have trauma from the rape, it is because of the rape.  The crime should be more seriously punished.  

Would I allow a woman to get an abortion if she gets raped, (this answers a previous question) probably yes.  I would not force the woman to get the abortion, however, as many women have been raped and decided to go through with the pregnancy.  There was an article in Time Magazine quite some time ago that highlighted some of the women that got raped and still did not get an abortion.  

Further, a person's morality applies to the majority of cases, not the exception, this is the same ways that our laws are promulgated.
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: March 12, 2004, 08:02:09 PM »

I think the problem with the abortion issue, and other social issues, is that the individual tries to impose their own belief over that of the entire community.

I love how you pro-lifers try to shift some blame to the rape victims for the rape. Abortion serves as a good population control, and reduces poverty and wedlock births.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: March 12, 2004, 08:10:46 PM »
« Edited: March 12, 2004, 08:12:06 PM by Brambilla »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is the fetus any less of a human if it was concieved through rape? If that fetus was born- would you kill it? Of course not. If I had a child concieved through rape, I wouldn't kill it at any age- it is always human. Rape is something absolutely disgusting and horrible, but in reality a woman can live through it- a fetus dies from abortion. As a matter of fact, it's not just the woman who is the victim from rape- so is the fetus. They're in it together.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: March 12, 2004, 08:14:25 PM »

I think the problem with the abortion issue, and other social issues, is that the individual tries to impose their own belief over that of the entire community.

I love how you pro-lifers try to shift some blame to the rape victims for the rape. Abortion serves as a good population control, and reduces poverty and wedlock births.

Population control? Reduces poverty? What? Since when have there been too many people? Since when has killing people random reduce poverty?

I love it how pro-choicers make statements up. We never shifted any blame to rape victims. You made that up.
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: March 12, 2004, 10:16:11 PM »

The women who need abortion, are most likely in poverty or real young. I meant "population control" more as an insurance that orphanages and foster care agencies, as well as other social services, don't grow. Abortion is not right, but it makes our children in the hands of better parents, and prevents further moral decay.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: March 12, 2004, 10:21:38 PM »

The women who need abortion, are most likely in poverty or real young. I meant "population control" more as an insurance that orphanages and foster care agencies, as well as other social services, don't grow. Abortion is not right, but it makes our children in the hands of better parents, and prevents further moral decay.

And Scrooge said 'Well, if they are going to die, then they had better do it quickly to decrease the surplus population'.  
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: March 12, 2004, 10:27:18 PM »

I am not talking about "decreasing" the surplus population, its avoiding increasing it. Can you imagine, what society would look like without abortion? I don't think it would look to strong.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: March 12, 2004, 11:15:20 PM »

I am not talking about "decreasing" the surplus population, its avoiding increasing it. Can you imagine, what society would look like without abortion? I don't think it would look to strong.

Yes, because we all know how much of a drag it would be on society and humanity in general if all of the millions of people who were slaughter in the abortion mills- for reasons other than rape, incest, or life of the mother- were still alive today.  Hey my mother was single.  I'm sure that I've been a huge drag on the society.  I have no promise because of the circumstances of my birth.  Wouldn't have things been sooo much better if I wasn't here to suck the life-blood out of society?  My poor mother, what a strain it most have been for her to take care of me.  I guess that's a perfect reason to punch a hole in my skull and suck my brain out or inject me with fluid or chop me up with some other death device.  It would be great if society didn't have to deal with people like me because we are such trouble to everyone else.  I'm sure things are better because millions of people were never given a chance to live.  It's great that we can judge people before they are born, because as long as they are just a statistic that represents certain groups of the population, we don't have to think about it.  Is this what you meant?

Have you ever seen an aborted baby?  I have.  Were you born as one of those who are demographically most likly to be aborted.  I was.  Are you one of those members of the 'Surplus population'?  I am.  

Not that any of that will ever change your mind, but I'll leave you to chew on it.  
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: March 12, 2004, 11:19:42 PM »

The choice still should remain. I am not trying to say that all mothersm who are likely to have an abortion, are incapable of doing a good job, but the option should remain so that the mother can make a final decision.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: March 12, 2004, 11:26:07 PM »

I am not talking about "decreasing" the surplus population, its avoiding increasing it. Can you imagine, what society would look like without abortion? I don't think it would look to strong.

This are your exact words aren't they?  How am I supposed to read that.  It certainly sounds to me that you are making a value judgement about those who are aborted.  You seem to be maintaining that society is much better without those people.  Do I misunderstand you?
Logged
zachman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: March 12, 2004, 11:32:38 PM »

I think that the government should not restrict this option. It is up to the mother to decide, but I think they should consider it if they think they can not raise their child to make a positive impact on society.

Why do I keep backtacking with my ideas?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: March 12, 2004, 11:47:52 PM »

...but I think they should consider it if they think they can not raise their child to make a positive impact on society.


Why should that be the determining decission about whether some deserves to live?  Do you have any clue how many people there are out there who are looking to adopt?  For most of these people, it is too difficult to get an American child, so they end-up going to places like China and Russia.  You seem to preclude that someones fates is determined simply by the circumsatnces of their birth and if those circumstances are not favorible, then we should just do away with those people, because we don't want to waste our time dealing with the hassel.  I thought that liberals were supposed to be compassionate.  Yet they would deny someone the ultimate act of compassion, the right to live.  How do you justify this seeming contradiction?
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: March 13, 2004, 11:10:46 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, there are no more orphanages in the United States- and I think we should reinstitute them. My grandmother was adopted from an orphanage, and she has very fond memories from it. She actually missed being there after she was adopted. Foster care is where the problems arise. Internationally, children do better in orphanages than foster care.

By your logic, it would also be alright to kill infants that are unwanted. Better to kill them so that other infants can live luxurious lives!
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: March 13, 2004, 11:47:47 AM »

We do show the depths of our compassion when we support reproductive rights. Perhaps the type of compassion we show isn't readily apparent to you.

When we tell women that they may procure an abortion, we grant them an enormous responsibility. That responsibility is to determine whether, considering the range of circumstances that make up the fabric of their lives, they shall be mothers.

It is not a simple choice. I can say so from personal experience, having devoted much time to helping family planning agencies do their good work. Many women agonize for long periods of time, because they consider it the biggest decision of their life. Often, it is not whether they want a child or not, but simply that they can't afford to feed it. Many women make that choice, and have misgivings about it for quite sometime afterward.

Then, there are women who find out that the fetus growing inside them doesn't have a brain. It shall die within days or weeks after birth. But to deliver it alive, the uterus must be cut open so much that is damaged, often so much so that any chance of future child bearing is nil. A woman can also have the same late-term procedure that was banned, without a health exception, and her fertility will be uncompromised. She may then have the chance to bring a healthy baby into the world. Of course, as a fetus advances in gestation, the choice as to whether to continue such grows more difficult, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual.

I believe that the pro-life people oversimplify the decision. They portray it as something that women do arbitrarily rather than as a product of long and painful deliberation. They portray late-term abortion as a matter of convenience, rather than as a matter of a fruitful life in the future. To respond, we show our compassion by seeing more than the ultimate decision, but the lives affected by all that may come of it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.