|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:52:19 PM |
If you read the article I cited, you will discover that being "uncomfortable" occurs in much earlier stages than many people realize. Sense of touch occurs at about 8-9 weeks which is the midpoint between the CDC's two markers. This is also supported by other sources, but be it known that the article is from a parenting magazine not dealing with abortion.
And like I stated earlier, I believe abortions should be done before two months. Thanks, I already have a dictionary. I also know that without a brain to register feeling, there is none.
So you would speculate that he may prefer to die if his life is sad? See my appeal-to-death-as-humane statement again.
I would speculate that such time and attention probably has better places to go, such as saving babies who are born to early whose parents love them. Research should be done on the individual's life. Like a said, circumstances.
As far as chickens, cows, and duck-billed platipi go, there is no point in continuing. If we cannot stipulate the self-evident (humans being the most valuable), this is pointless. Ask me if I would shoot my dog or my child first? It's a nonsense argument.
But the value of life is what this has come down to. How much an individual loves something... I, personally, would choose my daughter over my cats, but when she was still in the womb, and she was not yet sentient, I would have chosen my cat. I had/have a bond with him, and his life was more important at the time. But as no one has made me choose, this has not been brought into play. I would not shoot any of my children, humans, cats, rats, or the guinea pig. Why do you call all things you wish not to discuss "nonsensical"?
Ah, yes. My father told me once that Christians believe only humans have souls. They really do differentiate, don't they?
Another nonsense argument. You don't get pregnant by sharing towels.
What? People don't die in car accidents by sharing towels, either. Is this a poor metaphor or are you trying to win by confusing the opponent? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:04:12 PM |
Right to choose is equivocal, since a woman may not be given the choice to conceive, a fetus is incapable of choosing anything at all, and a father may be so against his will or denied despite his will.... A fetus is incapable of choice [it grows as a joined, utterly dependant parasite].
Neither the fetus nor the father is faced with the choice of being the life support system of "an utterly dependent parasite." Only the woman can determine if she has the physical, emotional, spiritual and financial resources to sustain a pregnancy, which is what makes the decision hers.
While women may become involuntarily pregnant by the actions of men, the argument by those who oppose abortion has less to do with women than it does with the fetus.
But isn't it interesting that it is mostly men who are most vehement about it?
I am sure I am not the first to observe that the male debaters' passion for debating the fate of unwanted fetuses is more than offset in the real world by so many men's lack of interest in supporting, in any way, their unplanned offspring. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:11:48 PM |
And like I stated earlier, I believe abortions should be done before two months. Thanks, I already have a dictionary. I also know that without a brain to register feeling, there is none.
Hit your knee with a hammer in the right place. Your leg doesn't jump because of your brain, and you do not pull your hand away from a hot stove with your brain. It's called pain withdrawal reflex. Once the danger signal reaches the spinal cord, it jumps straight back into the motor junction to activate immediate action. In any case, it doesn't matter. Also, have you ever heard of congenital insensitivity to pain? We don't define human life so easily. Once again, it is unknown and/or subjective.
But the value of life is what this has come down to. How much an individual loves something... I, personally, would choose my daughter over my cats, but when she was still in the womb, and she was not yet sentient, I would have chosen my cat. I had/have a bond with him, and his life was more important at the time. But as no one has made me choose, this has not been brought into play. I would not shoot any of my children, humans, cats, rats, or the guinea pig. Why do you call all things you wish not to discuss "nonsensical"?
This is another one of those character anihilation scenarios. Look, it is not absolutely imperitive that you win this argument. In fact, I would highly discourage it if you have to resort to making such claims. Being as you have already posted, I will address it, but I would encourage you to read your own words and see if they do not give evidence that something is amiss.
How much love can one extend to a stranger? Does that mean they are persona non grata?
I do not really know what to say about the cat thing. I am sorry you feel that way, but understand that your love does not change life, death, or human value.
Why do you call all things you wish not to discuss "nonsensical"?
I did discuss it. I called it nonsensical because some things are self-evident. If you nullify or dampen human life, you also nullify or dampen human emotion, human choice, and human difficulty. It nullifies both arguments both nothing means anything without the human element. It is a premise in which both arguments rest upon. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:25:58 PM |
Hit your knee with a hammer in the right place. Your leg doesn't jump because of your brain, and you do not pull your hand away from a hot stove with your brain. It's called pain withdrawal reflex. Once the danger signal reaches the spinal cord, it jumps straight back into the motor junction to activate immediate action. In any case, it doesn't matter. Also, have you ever heard of congenital insensitivity to pain? We don't define human life so easily. Once again, it is unknown and/or subjective.
So when do nerves develop? Also, when you hit your knee, it can hurt. No brain, and it still doesn't hurt, does it? No pain is what I am saying. No ability to think, even in the simplest fashion "I'm uncomfortable" or "this hurts". Bodies have these reactions after death, too. Don't kill them again, becuase that, in your oh-so-modest human opinion, is wrong. At least a plant moves its leaves toward the sun.
This is another one of those character anihilation scenarios. Look, it is not absolutely imperitive that you win this argument. In fact, I would highly discourage it if you have to resort to making such claims. Being as you have already posted, I will address it, but I would encourage you to read your own words and see if they do not give evidence that something is amiss.
How much love can one extend to a stranger? Does that mean they are persona non grata?
I do not really know what to say about the cat thing. I am sorry you feel that way, but understand that your love does not change life, death, or human value.
I pity your dog. He has a soul, emotions, and probably loves you, (as stupid as that is.) We are all instinct with emotions layered on top. Where exactly the line draws for what has emotion of what does not is a little fuzzy, but I know my entire family does, no matter how many legs they have. We'll agree to disagree on this one, because I fear you will never see your folly. You are a narcissist of the human race. I wouldn't give up any of my family for the life of someone I don't know, no, unless there was some miraculous reason. Personally, I don't think you should have pets.
I did discuss it. I called it nonsensical because some things are self-evident. If you nullify or dampen human life, you also nullify or dampen human emotion, human choice, and human difficulty. It nullifies both arguments both nothing means anything without the human element. It is a premise in which both arguments rest upon.
"Self-evident". Yes, common sense... Electronics run on electricity. Fish swim. Bees fly. Lift your feet when you walk up steps. Humans being more important that everything else on earth is not self-evident. It's egotistical. You must not know much about animals. I'd suggest ravens, dolphins, and wolves. Oh, wait! You might have to learn something that would displease you. Keep closing out the bad thoughts...
Humans have the ability to be the worse and best of Earth's creatures. I think I know which side you are taking. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:40:54 PM | | I'm going to do something productive with my time now... such as groom my children, all 4 of the ones that require grooming. Oh, there's my sweet Amon now. He always comes to me. (I'm mommy and no one else.) I bid whoever is left on here a good night. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:59:50 PM | There are too many logical fallacies to deal with to provide significant response to the whole thing. I will, as foolish as it may be, continue the animal discussion since it is somehow remotely linked to abortion with the human value element.
I wouldn't give up any of my family for the life of someone I don't know
I am deducing here that you are speaking of your cat. Oh boy. You already claimed you wouldn't give up any of your family for the life of someone you don't know, and saying you pity my dog. I think that is enough to infer that you place more value on your cat than a stranger. If I misinterpreted, I'm sure you will let me know.
How would you feel if your daugther was drowning and a stranger refused to save her because his dog fell in the water at the same time? If you tell me you could not fault him logically, I will have a duck right here and now.
You would be logically wrong if you think it would be okay to fault him, but a stranger could not fault you for saving your cat under the same scenario, which is essentially, if I interpreted correctly, a valid scenario based upon your claim.
You would incur a double standard fallacy in terms of logic.
Deviating from logic, you could argue self-interest, but then you would have a character problem. I certainly would not trust the opinions of anyone who cannot extend equal measures to both themselves and others. It sort of indictates that one who subscribes to such a philosophy feels they deserve better treatment than others.
Perhaps I misunderstood? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 12:24:53 AM |
Humans being more important that everything else on earth is not self-evident. It's egotistical.
I hope you don't eat any meat then at all.  | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 12:37:24 AM | No, you didn't misunderstand. You just devalue the life of innocent "animals", (though we are animals too. Or don't you believe in evolution?). If you heard someone in Asia was dying, and they could be saved if you killed your dog, would you do it? If you would never hear anything about it ever again, never meet the person, etc?
Generally dogs and cats can swim. Implying a person's cat is actually drowning, I wouldn't fault them for going for their cat, no. Humans are all self-interest. It's how we survive. I've seen dogs rush into burning homes to save human babies because they consider them part of their family... though dogs do understand death to some extent and definitely feel pain. Now, if it was a small baby verses an adult cat, I would go after the baby, considering which one has a higher chance of survival if left for slightly longer, which one has the shorter lifespan anyway, etc. Again, circumstances. No, you're not going to think about that in the case. You're going on impulse, adrenaline, when that happens.
A lot of what you say is pure pontification. Trying to insult me because I don't view humans as the ultimate species? Well, that's your opinion. I extend my equal measures to all life that I care about. I love my friends, my child, my animals, and I care for them all far more than myself. Nice character problem.
Humans rule the world because they are vicious predators, corrupted, and they believe, like you, that they have priority. That's why we have extinction even without natural disasters. Humans are as evil, if not more evil, than they are good.
You can assume pompously that you've won, since I'm fairly certain you've already made that assumption. No one can win or lose a debate in which no one ever overcomes the other. (By definition, that would be a tie.) I honestly don't care what some idiot thinks. I love those closest to me far more than most. Yes, I may share some indifference to parts of the rest of the world, but innocent people die every second. Do you care? When I stopped crying over them, I decided if I were to worry about everyone in the world, rather than those close to me, (considering all of my companions much more equal than you do,) that I would be constantly depressed. I have been through this.
After you finish crying, (seriously weeping, just as I have,) about starving children and the murders that occured during the holocaust or 9/11, get back to me... as I am not devaluing human life. I'm simply not devaluing anything but mindless cells.
Which might mean I'm devaluing you.
Back to my daughter. Time for kale soup!
BTW, as to the meat comment, I believe in the circle of life. Nature takes its course. However, I am pretty specific on what meat I will eat... mostly among the less intelligent animals, just as I will kill flies... though quickly. I also will only eat farmed animals of a certain age who are killed quickly and who do not know their death is coming. (There are laws about that, after all.) I won't be offended if a tiger in the wild eats someone... disturbed, but that's natural... well, those chimps that steal babies, (other chimps and humans, as well,) eat their faces off and leave them to die... that's just plain disgusting. It's a territory thing - chimps are so very similar to humans, aren't they? Killing without the need for survival.
I could go into discussing proteins and how our body is built to eat animals, but that is *way* off topic.
Good night, everyone. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 1:18:06 AM | Generally dogs and cats can swim. Implying a person's cat is actually drowning, I wouldn't fault them for going for their cat, no. Humans are all self-interest. It's how we survive. I've seen dogs rush into burning homes to save human babies because they consider them part of their family... though dogs do understand death to some extent and definitely feel pain.
If that's true why does some dogs bite people for no reason. Even their own master?
I also will only eat farmed animals of a certain age who are killed quickly and who do not know their death is coming. (There are laws about that, after all.)
Laws are broken all the time, look at a beef processing factory farm. Laws are broken all the time. Some cows don't die right away. Ever been to a slaughter house?
I could go into discussing proteins and how our body is built to eat animals, but that is *way* off topic.
Our bodies doesn't need meat to survive or bed healthy. There's plenty of people who don't eat meat that are healthy. Chlorella in fact is 60%, much better than eating a piece of steak :)
A lot of what you say is pure pontification. Trying to insult me because I don't view humans as the ultimate species? Well, that's your opinion.
I honestly don't care what some idiot thinks. Wow what do you think name calling is
I'm simply not devaluing anything but mindless cells.
How do you know for sure cells are mindless? Can you prove a cell can not feel pain or even think?
I love my friends, my child, my animals, and I care for them all far more than myself. Nice character problem
You really love them? Maybe you are scared to be lonely. Maybe you want someone to talk to. Your friends, child and animals will be gone once you die what's the point? I think you're feeding your some ego. Can you totally be alone for a year and not go crazy? So if someone or something isn't to your advantage it's ok to kill them off. So abortion is ok because you can't benefit from the child, the child will cause you more pain than it's worth then it's ok to murder. Good logic! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 6:45:48 AM | | Abortion is okay because it does benefit the child...No child should be born unwanted and into a life that full of abuse and pain...Did it ever occur to you that children want to be wanted by their parents in order to thrive?..That when mothers are in pain over an unwanted child, they can NEVER be the best parents....They wont take care of their bodies...Pschologically, they cant give the child what it needs to THRIVE, not just exist as a plant or vegetable......You will never get blood out of a stone here and expect mothers to be good parents when their own needs arent taken cared of..You cant scrape an empty barrel and expect to magically get something for nothing....Children born of parents who are too young or drug addicted or poor or abused or otherwise unwanted suffer terribly...How is that "family values"?..That increases MORE, not LESS money for social services, those agencies the antiabortion folk complain there should be LESS of..Then why do you support a law that would increase MORE of that???...I find it so hypocritical and ironic that those who criticize social services and legal abortion want illegal abortion that would INCREASE the need for social services with your taxes..Wheres the logic in THAT??????...Why dont the anitichoice crowd answer to THAT?...They cant answer to that because its all about control of women and imposing their will on people then walking away | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:02:48 AM |
Abortion is okay because it does benefit the child...No child should be born unwanted and into a life that full of abuse and pain...Did it ever occur to you that children want to be wanted by their parents in order to thrive?..(etc.)
Abortion benefits the unborn child? That's a stretch! It's ceased to live! It's DEAD! Where's the upside in your opinion? The presumption of abuse and pain? An unknown (and unknowable) matter. And a cruel assumption about the way certain socio-economically disadvantage groups treat their children.
But tell me this, if the above is true, then should we prohibit the rich, healthy, educated woman from having an abortion because, unlike the poor woman, she can benefit her child? Or was it just another smoke screen? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:19:19 AM | You will never get blood out of a stone here and expect mothers to be good parents when their own needs arent taken cared of..You cant scrape an empty barrel and expect to magically get something for nothing....Children born of parents who are too young or drug addicted or poor or abused or otherwise unwanted suffer terribly...How is that "family values"?
If a woman doesn't want a child then she can use protection, condoms, birth control pills etc. There is no excuse to have unwanted pregnancy. And if a woman is very sure she never wants children she can have her tubes tied.
I don't see how killing a child is a benefit for the child. People obviously have lack of morals. Noway you look at it abortion is wrong.
But tell me this, if the above is true, then should we prohibit the rich, healthy, educated woman from having an abortion because, unlike the poor woman, she can benefit her child? [/quote} Well said I couldn't have said it better myself. ndeed. They don't care if the baby is left to its own devices in a setting devoid of any real, healthy love, affection, and nurturing. They would rather see children suffer, abused, molested, beaten, abandoned, etc., rather than have that much less suffering in the world. trippy_hare I have been there. I have suffered, been abused, molested, and beatened. Guess what I prefer to live then die. I am glad my mother didn't have an abortion. Who are you to decide who will live and who will die? Maybe we have meant to be here to suffer. Maybe we are meant to be here to be beaten etc. Maybe we did bad things in the past and we must pay for it! Maybe I should kill you now and decide you shouldn't suffer anymore. All humans suffer! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:32:54 AM | | Its not a stretch...I work directly with people who werent wanted when they were born..They often have mental illness and drug abuse because the mother couldnt care for them......They have many medical problems and are often suicidal....They utilize social services because of child abuse in their own families...How is that "family values" here?...The irony being that the anitabortion folk criticize social services while at the same time support a law that would increase it...Wheres the logic in THAT?....People who dont want abortion legal often dont work behind the scenes and see the direct conseqeunces of living without it...All women have the right to a safe legal abortion, not just wealthy ones.....Poverty is the biggest reason for child abuse and mental illness and drug addiction and child abuse...Most women forced to bear a child end up poor...Do the math here..What you dont seem to get is the health and wellbeing status of the mother is a DIRECT predictor of how well a child is taken care of and ends up in life...Treat the mother like crap and you end up with an abused and neglected child....Or else you dont really care, isnt it?..Do you really believe women forced to bear children against their will make good mothers???....She will be forever competing with her child for help and services and parenting that was denied to herself...Isnt the child supposed to get the lions share of that rather than competing with his mother??....Step inside my office for a week..Guaranteed to change your mind | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:37:13 AM | Yours is an appeal to emotions, which is always dubious. It's also an anecdotal list presented as facts. There is no evidence (other than your tales) that "abortion is good for the child". There's no evidence that "wanted children = good citizens" and "unwanted children= bad citizens". We shall have to disagree. In spite of my gender.  | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 7:43:31 AM | | I have 20 years experience as a licensed mental health therapist working with thousands of women since 1988....Many were the product of unwanted pregnancies before abortion was legal...Thats my evidence..I said nothing about unwanted children being "bad citizens"...Mine is an appeal based on thousands of eye witness observations and listening to families for decades, not simple tales... ......Its your choice if you dont accept that or cant handle that but its definitely not based on my emotions..I deal with the collective consequences of unwanted pregnancy...You dont... | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 8:22:51 AM | If you heard someone in Asia was dying, and they could be saved if you killed your dog, would you do it? If you would never hear anything about it ever again, never meet the person, etc?
Strictly in an emotional capacity and proximity to the situation, It wouldn't be easy to do considering I had never met the person, but I would be deluding myself to think that I should not save this person at the expense of my dog. I would have to choose human life first. Let's put it on a more even keel and ask if you would save a strange dog or strange person.
Yes I do care about the starving children and I still feed and pet the nuisance that showed up at my guard house last week even in spite of the plant manager's comments. The dog drags everything from the plant and across the road down to the guard house and it's a daily routine picking up bones, paper, shredded styrofoam cups... I don't consider animals to be devalued by any means. I would help a stray just like I would help a person, but a dog is not more important than a human being by any stretch.
If you care about the holocaust, read Man's Serach for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl. It is one of the saddest and most eye-opening books I have ever read. In any case, the fact that you could not fault someone for saving their cat versus your daughter... well, I'll let that speak for itself. I think you presume too much calling me an idiot. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 9:19:33 AM | id love to find a scenario where someone is forced to choose killing either a person or a cat i mean my god its just laughable!!
as to unwanted children in disadvantaged families there is such thing as adoption people are not forced to keep the baby! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 9:34:29 AM |
If you're “playing catch” with your Child in your backyard and you took Precautions “NOT” to break your neighbors window by Installing a Fence so the ball wouldn't go onto your neighbor's property.....and if the baseball went over the fence and “broke” your neighbor's window...Would you be Responsible to replace the window?
Thus.....eventhough you didn't Intend to break the window...eventhough you took Precautions NOT to break the window...YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE for the window, aren’t you?...
Legally? Not necicerilly. It all depends on something called reasonable precautions.
For example if you built a picket fence and then played baseball in your yard, your fence would not be considered to be reasonable precations as it would be insuficent to stop a baseball. However if you built a 24 foot, chain link fence like they have at profesional batting areanas, then you would be legally considered to have taken reasonable precautions to avoid damage and would not be found responsable for any acisental damage caused by a stray ball.
Condoms count as reasonable protection against the consequences of sex, thus if you have sex with someone with both partners knowing you have AID's but you take precautions and your partener still gets aids, you are not legally responsable for your partners infection.
A Woman "becomes" a Parent, when she "becomes" Pregnant...
If you don't think so, just ask a pregnant woman…
A.) Does she not take care of “herself” to actually care for her offspring?
B.) Does she not take vitamins and supplements for herself and her offspring?
C.) Does she become more “health” conscious and more aware of what she eats?
D.) Is she not more “careful” in what she does with her body?
Actually a PERSON legally becomes a parent when a child is born. Fathers are not due to pay any upkeep for the baby before it is born and the woman is not considered to be a mother untill the child exits her body (hence the term, "Expectant mother")
Your definition holds no water legally. For a start, just because you say that is what women do, dose not mean it is what women do. In fact they are as likely to take less care of themselves as they are to take more care, every woman reacts to pregnancy indavidually and you can not classify women by your simplistic asertations.
People must assume responsibility for any decisions they make, including whatever happens when they force others to live under their rules...It work both ways here and no one can flip flop and change the "rules" whenever it suits them I wonder....Can I get "people" to assume my responsibility to pay for that Porsche I decided to buy. Maybe I'll make them pay for the insurance I'm forced to buy in order to drive it, too. Afterall, thats the rules. right? Whatever I decide to do, it's NOT my responsibility! It's yours! Wow!
Ah, a clasic example of obfuscation.
what he is saying is that if you force someone to have a child, you are the person responsable for the decision, not the person having the child. As such you are the one who shade bear the cosequences. Whereas if you decide to but a porche, then you are the one who has made the desicion, not someone else.
Legally, if you could prove that some other person forced you to buy the porsche against your will, they that other person would be responsable for the legal maintanence of tha car and not you. So why dose this not apply with pregnancy and birth? If you can prove that you were forced to give birth against your will, then surelly the persons who forced you to have a child would be responsable for the legal maintanance and upkeap of that child? (Please note, this is not the same thing as child support, as child support only aplies to the biological father and forced coercion aplies to any persons that can be demonstrated to have participated in the coersion.)
Abortion has happened since the times of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
Actually there is no evidence for this. We know that abortions have gone on since history began, but not before this point ecause we have no evidence to prove it. Al we can do is infer that it was happening. Contempery with the first writen records is our first evidence of abortion taking place, but we have no eveidence for any abortions before then.
By the way, there are far too many human beings on the earth right now. Part of the reason jobs are so short is that there's only so much work that really *needs* to be done.
Please do try to diferentiate our facts and your opinions. There is no such thing as overpopulation. Just how many humans is to many? If we increase our technology levels dose that increase the popluation limit? With our current level of technology, we are cappable of harvesting the resources of other planets, we just do not because its prohibitavly expensive, but we have the resources of our entire solar sytsem at our disponsal and that can easilly support a popluation billions of times larger than our curent six'billion.
I am glad you mentioned the comatose scenario, because abortion is both the same and different from that. You would have state that said patient was fully dependant and non-sentient, but with a twist--he/she must have a guaranteed recovery prognosis. Would anyone pull the plug?
Would I pull the plug? No, because its not my desicion to make, it is a desicion for the familly to make, or posibly even the person themselves if they have a DNR or other such prioritae order. aditionally, coma patients have diferent levels of cognicients, some coma patients resond to stimuli and are capable of hearing and even swallowing y themsleves, but not of thinking or ussing memory. Other coma patients are almost completely brain dead. So there are many difrent types of coma, whereas all fetuses of a particular age are of the same level of development.
Medically we have decided what levels of brain activity constitute being still human and below those thresholds, doctors leave it up the familly of the patient to decide whether to cut of life support or not, just as they leave pregnant woman to decide wether or not abortion is aceptable bellow a certain level of fetal development. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 10:48:45 AM | Thank you Capegardengirl for bringing up yet another important point. Those who call themselves "pro life" and then turn their backs on needy children by failing to support programs that help children who are already born are hypocritical as well. I am appalled at the attitudes of so-called "pro lifers" who should be working hard to support programs that help kids once they are born.
A true pro lifer would support adoption agencies and work hard to promote adoption, while also strongly supporting programs that benefit children in need. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:38:49 AM | I ask that all involved in this worthy debate forgive me for my rudeness and overall lack of sound judgment yesterday. My state of mind today is quite different from the one I experienced yesterday (it was extremely hot where I live yesterday, and as the great Shakespeare once put it, that is when "the mad blood's flowing". Hopefully we shall 'scape a brawl this day.
Now, back on topic.
I have observed that the real argument is a matter of priority between two parties.
On one side, there is the mother, or more specifically her right to choose whether she wishes to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.
On the other, there is the unborn fetus, or more specifically the potential for a living being therein.
My opinion will lay to the wayside for now, and I'll just state the things I have seen as facts, or at least as given facets to various arguments for or against abortion.
First, there is the matter of the mother's right to choose. A child is a life-changing event, no matter how many you've had, and no matter whether you raise the child, abort the child's fetus, or put the born child up for adoption. The child affects the quality of life of the mother and all those who share a place with her. The child often affects the psyche of the father figure(s) involved in the child's life. I could go on forever about just how monumental a pregnancy alone is, let alone a living child.
Some women are not ready to go through with that at the time that it comes upon them.
Condoms break. Passion sometimes causes lovers to even forget to use precautions. Other times, pregnancy is an unwanted burden on the body and soul of a woman, and but for the forceful violation of her being by another man does this parcel exist. Again, there are boundless justified reasons for a woman to want an abortion of her child-bearing process.
Finally, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. It means being in support of the choice as to whether a woman wishes to abort or not. A lot of the time, a woman will choose to bear the child, and often she will do so because of her religious beliefs. That's totally within the bounds of pro-choice ideals, from my understanding.
Now, to cover what I know of the point of view of the fetus. I will not bash either side until the end.
The fetus is the core of a new lifeform. It is this parcel that has the potential to grow into a new person. Anyone who has seen the film "Children of Men" can attest to the power of a child's birth in this world of toil and sin. To abort a fetus is to kill a living being, that is true.
I do not know what point in pregnancy it is that one should arbitrate as the point of new life. But there is a subargument within the main one that hinges on it, so it's worth keeping one's opinion on the matter in mind, I think.
A child can become one of the next presidents, as easily as the child might become a rockstar or just another worker at a factory or white-collar business complex. A child's life and future, for all we know, is like a roll of immensely important dice, but is *always* valuable. Life is sacred. Life is beautiful.
I abstain from mentioning any divinity outside of this sentence's own allusion to such, because I am trying to make this comparison and run-down as objective and pure as possible. Any such allusions beyond this have the potential to only inflame the argument and the parties involved, which is unhealthy for a proper debate.
Now, I will try to be respectful of both sides of this debate as I begin to argue their counterpoints.
The first that jumps to mind is the paradox of the following:
The choice of an already-living human being as to whether she can continue trying to improve her life, and hopefully allow her future children (whether born or adopted) to experience a less challenging lifestyle in their times of nurturing...
Versus the continuation of a process that is not guaranteed to work properly, but whose rewards include the creation of new life; one of the greatest wonders of our world, visible to even the most humble of people.
On one hand, there is a limit to how easy a child's early life should be, lest the child not be challenged at all and end up with all its survival skills atrophied away by lack of need.
On the other, there is a point where a living person's freedom to improve herself is more important than the potential for a new child, along with all the drama it entails.
If anyone else knows of other paradoxes, it is certainly in their rights to suggest them.
My conclusion after all this is that, because the issue is whether to disallow abortion to take place or not, and the issue has drawn a logical stalemate in my calculations, the default logical choice is to continue allowing abortion until further evidence presents itself showing that abortion is a net negative action to the integrity of human morality and ethics, at which point the debate should be restarted.
This is the logical equivalent of saying that, in deciding whether to break a window or not (the breaking of the window representing the banning of abortion, in addition to being an action taken when no clear and present danger requiring escape exists), if one cannot think of overwhelming reasons why one should break the window, the decision should be delayed until new evidence shows itself (such as a fire).
~ David | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:48:20 AM |
Poverty is the biggest reason for child abuse and mental illness
Acutally that's not true at all. Child abuse has nothing to do with poverty. Same with mental illness. Of course there's more poor people than rich people so there will be more poor people with mental health issues. It doesn't take a rock sceientist to figure that out. You put a value on life, the mother probably would have been poor anyways. There's many example of women who are single parents that are well off.
I have helped people with mental health issues and relationship problems. Money is a small factor for it. Mental health is a mind issue not a money issue. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:55:03 AM | | designing woman...I just noticed that several men here who are antiabortion are also the ones who post on the thread about women not giving them enough sex...Well, DUH, if shes fearful about getting pregnant while having sex with you because of illegal abortion , do you think shes gonna agree to sex very much with you or relax, much less have an orgasm??.......There are consequences for wanting all the power over womens bodies.. You men will never force an attitude or your will over any women regarding her body so best get off it....Incredibly short sighted, selfish and stupid here and certainly not based on reality...Get a freaken plastic Stepford Wife | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 12:16:53 PM | | ...Very , very wrong...Actually its quite true that poverty is a the largest factor regarding child abuse and neglect as well as mental illness...Poor single mothers have less supports, money and resources to help themselves than do wealthier women....Their mental illness is complicatd and more severe because they dont get the treatment they need..We are also dealing with multi problems when addressing poverty stricken women and this always involves more long term and complicated care because of the severity of the abuse...Same with mental illness..Even when I treat two schizophrenics, the wealthier one has more resources and money to treat his illness and its caught earlier with better healthcare..He ends up having a less severe course of illness with much fewer hospitalization than his poverty stricken counterpart....Poor women with PTSD have far more flashbacks and abuse trauma because of poverty than wealthier ones...Wealthy women with PTSD experience less hospitalizations, are less depressed, have more supports and resources and need far less medications than poor women with PTSD...Povery stricken men with PTSD are more likely to end up in the military where they are more likely to experience war trauma, which further exacerbates their primary PTSD they had gotten in their childhood..Women who are single parents and well off are highly educated, of which most poverty stricken people are not. ...Mental health involves both mind and body..Not just the mind, so its not a simple mind issue...PTSD symptoms like flashbacks are often body ones in which the person has no control over when they occur.....Its a medical condition that should be treated....Mental health is indeed a large, pressing money issue since its often poorly investigated and services for it are poorly funded...About half of all vets who come to Walter Reed hospitalization for mental health treatment are turned away because of lack of staff and resources..That means their disease is allowed to progress to a more severe form of illness than wealthier vets who pay out of pocket for their healthcare | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 4:33:38 PM | This overpopulation thing keeps coming up. No matter how much one looks at websites, logic is the best way to come to a conclusion. Ask yourself:
Have we killed species in search for the dominance of land?
Have we started wars over land and resources?
Go research China! Also, the amount of people killed in wars amounts to nothing compared to how our population has grown in the last 20 years. Look that up too.
Now, some simple math. You and your significant other have two children. You die, and they replace you. This catholic woman has 7 children. While she's a nice individual, she cannot afford to send her children to college and she is increasing the population as much as 3 of the couples who are merely "replacing themselves". (I know this woman.) Our mortality rate and the number of those who do not have children is not high enough to counteract those who have too many. Thusly, if you don't believe in overpopulation now, do you care about the future?
I have one child. I will focus my attention on her. I will send her to a good college. I will be able to afford to send her to gymnastics, piano lessons, karate...
I will not have 3 children, have difficulty sending them to college or supporting their dreams.
One happy, well-educated child is a gift to society. 3 factory workers... not so much.
Now, back to the topic one individual is berating me for. You'd kill your dog for a complete stranger, but it would make you sad? Huh. Yeah, opinions are opinions, it's true. Would I let a human or a dog die? First, it would depend on who each of them were. Was it a famliless stray dog that bit? Was it a theif or a murderer? Was it a four month old puppy who belonged to a smart little girl? Was it a rocket scientist who loved his family? Was it a 2 month old puppy or an 80 yr. old man?
Implying I know *none* of this, I would probably go with the human, because our life expectancy is longer. Therefore, the probability that this person would get more out of the remainder of his/her life is higher than the dog's.
On to child abuse, mental illness and poverty.
I believe stress on parents causes child abuse. I also believe stress causes mental illness. Stress can be caused by poverty... I know the b*tch upstairs smokes, just like nearly everyone else in this neighborhood, because they're poor. Poor people smoke more, (though they could save a lot of money by quitting.) All I can say about child abuse is not only does the woman upstairs have 3 children and beat them, (though they still don't behave,) but they're going to get lung cancer as, (likely poorly educated,) adults.
Admittedly, I do not have the money to treat my mental disorders... nor to relieve the stress in my life that inflames them. My boyfriend's also stressed out, because he works 80/week just to get us by. Yeah, I think I agree with the poverty thing overall.
Oh, yeah, and giving birth for adoption vs. abortion, not considering all the sentience that's important to me:
I do think we are overpopulated.
My mother was adopted, and she's still traumatized that her original parents gave her up, even though she was adopted as a young baby. I've met others in this scenario too. That's not considering those who end up in orphanages unwanted.
For those who cannot pay healthcare costs, those appointments are expensive. Giving birth in the States can cost 8,000 dollars without insurance; If you manage to qualify for assistance, it can still cost 2 grand. I'm still paying mine off...
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 7/9/2008 6:22:05 PM | My conclusion after all this is that, because the issue is whether to disallow abortion to take place or not, and the issue has drawn a logical stalemate in my calculations, the default logical choice is to continue allowing abortion until further evidence presents itself showing that abortion is a net negative action to the integrity of human morality and ethics, at which point the debate should be restarted.
This is the logical equivalent of saying that, in deciding whether to break a window or not (the breaking of the window representing the banning of abortion, in addition to being an action taken when no clear and present danger requiring escape exists), if one cannot think of overwhelming reasons why one should break the window, the decision should be delayed until new evidence shows itself (such as a fire).
Kudos on your recognition that this a human rights issue.
So if it in fact it is a logical stalemate, why would the default choice be to continue allowing abortion?
I just got through reading a scholarly review and I found something that makes sense. A question was posed by a pro-life author that basically asked what a logical decision would be if faced with the prospect of a shooting range close to a school. She even went on to speculate a 1% chance that the bullet could ricochet and injure or kill a child if allowed to operate during school hours. Unlikely as it may be that a shooting range would actually be near a school, it makes for an interesting thought experiment. Should the range be able to express their civil liberty?
Now, the objective fact of probability.
Consider the Principle of Insufficient Reason. It basically states that given a certain number, N, of possibilities, with unknown and/or subjective value, that the probabililty of any one outcome will be 1/N. Considering that for all practical purposes, abortion has but two possible outcomes, we would have to state this as 1/2 and/or 50%.
I suppose 50% would be more in line with allowing the range to operate pointed straight at the playground with no back-stops.
I think we are forgeting the possible MORTALITY aspect of abortion. What you believe or I believe doesn't make a hill of beans to truth. I can present more than sufficient evidence to warrant utmost caution. It all comes down to cutting either the red wire or the blue wire, and somehow I don't think crossing your fingers and cutting is such a good idea when one can avoid the decision entirely. | |
|
|
| Page 31 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
