I just want to say, coming from my perspective as a guy, it really disturbs me when I don't see many more women trying to fight for abortion and protecting their reproductive rights and freedom.
I do know if I was in a woman's position, I would want abortion to remain legal always. Why is it that other people would feel that they have a right to control your uterus? That's not a 'baby', that's a clump of cells with no more feelings or reaction than a massive tumor. Excuse this crude comparison; but it would be like someone trying to force onto me what to do with my penis. Should there be an almighty person telling me to have kids with someone and when not to? No? Do you think that's wrong? Then how is it any different from a woman's situation when everyone has to demonize her for making a mistake?
I also know that I'm not supposed to drag my personal experiences into a debate, but I just want to add for the record that adoption isn't always a damn solution.
I was an adopted kid.
I had to live with two foster homes before I finally found one that wanted me and who could take care of me, and who weren't using their money and finance on drugs instead of school and clothes for me.
Some of you people foolishly think that there's a huge 'waiting list' with loving parents who are looking for any type of child. You're wrong.
Some fosters are extremely choosey about the children they adopt, and right when you think you've found a family, they'll decide that they can't handle you and throw you back into the system until you're sixteen and able to fend for yourself. Not to mention the fact that a lot of foster families adopt outside the USA and UK and into foreign countries--and that's if they're not in it for government assistence.
I know an ignorant person when I see one when they tell me that the solution to an unwanted pregnancy is 'adoption.'
/rant
I digress,
It just shouldn't matter what type of situation a woman is in for her to get an abortion. She should be able to get it with a full medical and mental screening. That choice would be hers, and she doesn't deserve the mockery she gets from other people when she's only thinking about the future and what's best for everyone.
It is imposing a culturally defined understanding of why people have sex and what the implications are of these onto people against their will. Cross cultural analysis readily identifies that your understandings of what engaging in sex means is little more than a social construction. People in differing cultures engage in it for different reasons and furthermore view pregnancy in differing ways. To present your understanding of what one is expressing by engaging in sex as objective and universal is nothing short of ethnocentrism.
Well I'm only having this debate in one culture, the US. I don't know what other cultures are referring to, but in the US where there's plenty of money for anyone to support a child I don't think it's right to "kill them off."
Quote:
I cried aloud with mirth and merriment! You may have noticed that I put the modified words within brackets. I assure you that this was neither accidental nor coincidental. As the action of doing such signifies that modifications have been made to the text which is being quoted. I was drawing on the logic that you presented with your earlier point in relation to the emotions as well as when person hood is attained. As with both instances it is dependent on an observer assigning values onto the sample. As such, far from reflecting what is being observed it reflects the culturally defined knowledge of the observer.
I know what the brackets signify. Also, when I was referring to the "emotions" of animals, I was speaking of their actions, as the actions in humans generally pertain to what a person is feeling. Not the same thing as two cells not able to show emotion.
Quote:
The problem here is that you are still drawing on knowledge from the same culturally defined understandings. If one was to ask someone from a 'traditional' Ju| hoansi society for instance to describe a phenomena in nature, they too would provide an explanation then draw on their culturally defined understandings to support it. This is something which can be readily observed in many cultures. Indeed is it not the nature of culture to be internally self supporting? As once a culture is no longer able to internally support itself, it loses legitimacy.
Even putting this aside, studying the animal kingdom is not a sufficient or reliable means to understanding social phenomena in human societies. Cross cultural analysis is vastly more informative and reliable in this regard.
Honestly, all this "cross culture" crap is making me laugh. Yes, in some cultures they eat their children. *nods* But there's a little something called ethics and morals that OUR society has or at least did have at one point in time. And those morals did not include blowing people up so you could go to heaven, killing and eating other people, and killing babies. If someone has a soul or a conscience we say it is a person. That is typical American definition of a human life, self awareness. Can YOU tell if there's someone who isn't self aware? I sure can't. No one knows. No one can know. So why are we killing "fetus'" that could be self aware human beings?
Quote:
That's not a 'baby', that's a clump of cells with no more feelings or reaction than a massive tumor.
Show me legit facts and I'll support that statement.
Quote:
I also know that I'm not supposed to drag my personal experiences into a debate, but I just want to add for the record that adoption isn't always a damn solution.
I was an adopted kid.
I had to live with two foster homes before I finally found one that wanted me and who could take care of me, and who weren't using their money and finance on drugs instead of school and clothes for me.
Some of you people foolishly think that there's a huge 'waiting list' with loving parents who are looking for any type of child. You're wrong.
Some fosters are extremely choosey about the children they adopt, and right when you think you've found a family, they'll decide that they can't handle you and throw you back into the system until you're sixteen and able to fend for yourself. Not to mention the fact that a lot of foster families adopt outside the USA and UK and into foreign countries--and that's if they're not in it for government assistence.
I know an ignorant person when I see one when they tell me that the solution to an unwanted pregnancy is 'adoption.'
/rant
I digress,
Sorry for your bad experience but your forgetting one key. Babies who are going to be adopted don't go into foster care homes. They go right to the homes who are adopting them. There is a difference between the foster care system and adopting a newborn baby. The baby is born, then after about 10-30 minutes of life is handed to their new family.
Also, when adopting a baby like that, there is no "payment" which is part of what makes it different. In fact, the family adopting is expected to foot the hospital bill for the mother having the child, and that's on top of the thousands of dollars people pay for paper work and court time and so on. So really pretty much any adoptive parent has money to take care of the kid and really truly wants one. And yes, there is a waiting list.
Also, I find it ironic that kids going into welfare is an argument for abortion, while not having a socialized healthcare is another(I'm referring to the US here).
People would rather have an abortion that costs less than support a living, growing human being until their adults. On the flip side, people would rather have an abortion than bring an infant into this world and have to pay for medical care because there's no socialized healthcare???
If you're whining about paying the welfare bill, have fun paying the HEALTHCARE bill. People can survive on 15,000 dollars a year, but 1 medical bill could be up to several million dollars. And if there's socialized healthcare, guess who get's to pay!! You. and me.
Quote:
I just want to say, coming from my perspective as a guy, it really disturbs me when I don't see many more women trying to fight for abortion and protecting their reproductive rights and freedom.
So does that mean when my parents try to tell me to clean my room, I can kill them? Cause you know, their trying to control something that's mine. How selfish can you be? Women have all the reproductive rights we need. Reproductive rights do not include abortion because that's not reproducing.
Abortion survivors. If the fetus is not alive when an abortion is done, then how can it survive?
Also for the argument that the definition of life is when someone is "viable" or able to live outside the womb without assistance. My grandmother lives in a nursing home. She can't feed herself, so nurses feed her. But she reads and writes and loves to paint and make things. But since she can't survive without assistance I guess she's not viable and we should kill her. I think not.
Well I'm only having this debate in one culture, the US. I don't know what other cultures are referring to, but in the US where there's plenty of money for anyone to support a child I don't think it's right to "kill them off."
Although the problem is that you are falsely presenting values as if they have some intrinsic universal worth. I am simply pointing out that your understandings of sex, life and child control are little more than social constructions. It is also worth noting that in the U.S.A there is more than one culture present. Although even then, I have been quite reductionist thus far. As not only are there differences in how such terms are understood cross culturally, we find there are also differences within a culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
Honestly, all this "cross culture" crap is making me laugh.
When discussing a phenomenon which can readily be observed over numerous cultures, drawing on how it is defined and understood from culture to culture can go a long way in helping us understand said phenomenon. This becomes even more important considering you are falsely trying to present your values and understandings as being universal. But as I mentioned before, this is not unexpected due to the imperialistic nature of the pro life stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
But there's a little something called ethics and morals that OUR society has or at least did have at one point in time.
I believe you will find that essentially every society has morals and ethics. :lol:
Although I am happy to turn the exchange to one focused on a 'Western world view'. Indeed I will even start the ball rolling in that direction, starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article three of the UDHR declares that
Quote:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
The important aspect of this article is the right to security of person. For when a female gets pregnant, if she does not desire to be pregnant the fetus is violating her security of person. As quite simply it has taken up residence within her body, without her consent. And no, engaging in sexual intercourse does not equate to giving consent.
Article 7 then declares that
Quote:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
From this we can see that the female is having her right to security of person violated. As such she is given the right to take action to defend herself from this violation. This is where she has access to an abortion. You are quite possibly wondering why it is that the fetus does not have a right to life. The problem with that, is that the fetus is the original violator of the females rights. By simply being in her body, it is violating her rights. As such its right to life does not grant it the right to violate the females rights. Furthermore the females rights to protect herself from said violation are protected in article 30
Quote:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
So from a UDHR perspective, the act of getting an abortion is simply a female protecting herself against a violation of her right to security of person.
Now while I am quite strongly pro choice, I believe action should be taken to minimize the chances of someone choosing to undergo an abortion. Indeed I wish to now draw upon an e-mail I got not so long ago from a political party (outside of parliament) in New Zealand. They are quite staunchly a conservative christian party, as reflected in their name "Family First". However I found myself agreeing with part of their stance on abortion. Granted they are strongly pro life, they did raise some important ideas which were highly encouraging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Family First
The previous Labour government patted itself on the back for allowing 14 weeks paid parental leave – that’s 14 weeks for mum to bond with baby, recover from pregnancy and childbirth, and establish a breastfeeding and daily routine (the Ministry of Health recommends six months breastfeeding), ready to go back to work while baby goes into childcare.
A Department of Labour study found that 70-75% of mums want at least 12 months paid parental leave. Most mums are going back to work after 6 months, not because they want to, but because of financial necessity.
Yet countries like the Czech Republic , Estonia , France and Germany offer three years paid parental leave. In some Nordic counties, there is even paid paternity leave.
Being someone who considers it absolutely shocking and detrimental to the position of females in society that raising children is treated as a lower class of labour (that is its unpaid), this suggestion is one which I absolutely agree with Family First on. If one wishes to minimize people choosing to go through with abortions financial assistance, child care etc is absolutely the way to go! After all, not only can this approach provide much needed help for the mother, but it is also investing in the well being of the child. Which I believe you mentioned is what concerns you most.
For those who don't care to look, I lost count at 27/50 of the states not even requiring PERMISSION FORMS for having an abortion for minors under the age of 17. There are only 1 or 2 states where abortion is outright illegal(at which point all you do is drive to another state).
I'm not arguing teen rights; I'm not a teenager. Maybe you misunderstood me or just assumed I was some high school slut with multiple abortions under my belt already. I didn't have sex until I was well out of high school, because I didn't want to make the decision to have an abortion if I were to get pregnant. I like to call that "responsibility," just as much as I would call having an abortion now in my life so that I can finish school and pay off a large amount of debt so I can properly raise my future children without state assistance "responsible." But I've been lucky enough to never have even been pregnant yet in my life, and I can thank an illness that prevents my own ovulation for that, compounded with the fact that I always use a condom and am under hormone therapy (a side effect of which is the unlikelihood of pregnancy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
Then why'd she have sex? Then why didn't she take precautions? If birth control failed, why did she trust it in the first place?
Women trust birth control because it reduces the chance of pregnancy. If I'm a 40-year-old mother with three kids and I have a tubal ligation, then I damned well better have every right to choose to terminate an unintended pregnancy. Otherwise, you're back to punishing women for having sex.
Quote:
And if YOU knew anything about adoption in the US, you'd know that what you said isn't true. Unless you use the foster care system to adopt
You contradicted your own statement. But even so, adoption doesn't take care of the issue of unwanted pregnancy. Birth control does, and abortion does, but adoption does not. You're punishing women for having sex by forcing them to carry children to full-term, which is not only very expensive but can uproot a woman's livelihood.
Additionally, if you're a minority mother, or you have a history of certain illnesses in your family, or your child is born with an "undesireable" condition (such as down syndrome), that child is much more likely to go into foster care than into the hands of a loving family. Adoptive parents can afford to be picky. Your child is not guaranteed to be picked.
Quote:
Also, I find it ironic that kids going into welfare is an argument for abortion, while not having a socialized healthcare is another(I'm referring to the US here).
I'm really confused by what you mean by this, but given the option, I'd rather have my tax money go to abortions than to women who birth children they don't want. Granted, this won't happen since the public option will be paid by the people who buy it (not by taxpayers), and in every iteration of the healthcare bill so far, abortion must be covered entirely seperately from other healthcare options and cannot be paid for by general funds. But, I would not be opposed to tax money going towards abortion.
Quote:
Women have all the reproductive rights we need. Reproductive rights do not include abortion because that's not reproducing.
Wrong. Reproductive rights means that I have the option of whether or not to reproduce. Voting rights means that I can register to vote and still not vote. Gun rights means I can get a conceal and carry permit and not arm myself. And reproductive rights means I can have sex and not have a child. Reproductive rights means that I control my uterus, not the government. I should not be forced by the government to carry a child I don't want. That is a violation of my reproductive rights. My right to not reproduce should I choose it.
(not directed at anyone in particular)
It boggles my mind that Republicans are constantly screaming "STOP BIG GUMMINT STAY OUT OF MY LIFE DON'T CONTROL MY HEALTH CARE NO GUMMINT HANDOUTS" and yet they want to control what women want to do with their bodies and whether or not a loving same-sex couple can adopt children (let alone marry). /rant
Assuming that the average lifespan is 75. 52% of abortions occur in women younger than 25(0-25= 30% of the population roughly). If you take the average time a girl becomes able to get pregnant then your talking about 11-25 which is only about 19% of the population is receiving 52% of all abortions. Now women enter menopause about the age of 52. So really, it's about 27% of the population able to give birth is receiving more than HALF of all abortions done in the United States.
23% of all abortions occur in minors(less than 18). Girls ages 11-18 account for about 13% of women able to give birth(a little over a tenth) but are receiving over 1/5 of all abortions.
Now putting some other statistics together...
1.37 million abortions are done every year in the United States. So every year, minors are having 315,100 abortions. That's almost 900 per day. Every hour, 35 girls between the ages of 11-18 have an abortion.
The average, middle class income for a family is a little over 50,000. Yet the income group of 30,000-60,000 thousand dollars a year accounts for over 38% of all abortions.
a little over 25% of all abortion are done by women with less than 15,000 dollars a year income(that accounts for pretty much all the teens who probably don't work for better than minimum wage).
1% of all abortions are done due to rape or incest and 6% of all abortions are due to health problems. About 93% of abortions are for social reasons.
This just saddens me.
Yeah? And seriouslly, do you realize that if all 315,100 babies were born how fucking over populated this world is? If there were no abortions or birth control this planet we are on wouldn't be able to support us. Imagine doubling or even trippling 315,100 because if no one was on birth control or had abortions this world we live in now would be pretty shitty. We have enough people in this world. That being said, this is what really pisses me off. I'm not sure if you meant it to be this way but it sure as hell pissed me off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
There is no doubt that babies are precious. It just saddens me that people would risk killing a baby because it's inconvenient to have a child right then. For those who were raped or health problems included, I understand their situation was tough..
Now tell me this, do you really think a woman who gets raped should bare the rapists child? What happens if a woman does drugs? Quite a few children out there are mentally retarded, do you really want the child to suffer? There's planty of that out there already. We dont need anymore of that! What if she doesnt want it? And are you telling me a 16 year old should have a child if she accidently gets pregnant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
Saying "If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex" does not mean I'm trying to control someone. Abortion is what happens when people who don't want to be pregnant, get pregnant. It's logic, not control...
Yeah? And people have a damned good right to get an abortion. It's their CHOICE. I think its pretty logical to have sex and using birth control. I think a person having sex who doesnt want to get pregnant should use birthcontrol to solve the problem so the problem of an abortion isnt neccasary.
Sex isnt a vile thing. People should be allowed to have sex and not worry about getting pregnant! And what if this person has a life? Like I already said in a previous post, a career? Do you expect the person to job her job? Do you really expect that person not to have sex because they dont want a kid? Anyone should be able to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. I swear you pro-life people can be annoying.
And are you telling people that they shouldn't use birth control because it provents a potential life? That is so BS. I'm sorry but grow some sense!
At least by week 7-11, the fetus has developed essential nerve and spinal receptors to the brain, enabling it to hypothetically feel pain. However, there is also no conclusive evidence to show that the fetus has a conscience or fully developed emotions. But most abortions take place before the 11 week period, as it is more of an ideal condition for the woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
Sorry for your bad experience but your forgetting one key. Babies who are going to be adopted don't go into foster care homes. They go right to the homes who are adopting them. There is a difference between the foster care system and adopting a newborn baby. The baby is born, then after about 10-30 minutes of life is handed to their new family.
Also, when adopting a baby like that, there is no "payment" which is part of what makes it different. In fact, the family adopting is expected to foot the hospital bill for the mother having the child, and that's on top of the thousands of dollars people pay for paper work and court time and so on. So really pretty much any adoptive parent has money to take care of the kid and really truly wants one. And yes, there is a waiting list.
And? Does it make the statement I made about them being tossed back into the system any less valid? Their homes may or may not be permanent depending on the adoptive family's situation. Do you think that just because a family might've scrounged up the money (that is if their insurance didn't help them) for a temporary 'hospital bill' that it's suddenly going to make them fit and loving parents? Not always. And the 'waiting list' cycle I mentioned still applies. There is not always a family waiting outside the hospital door to pick certain babies up, especially if the person going through the pregnancy didn't make up their mind as to what they wanted to do with it.
Abortion survivors. If the fetus is not alive when an abortion is done, then how can it survive?
Also for the argument that the definition of life is when someone is "viable" or able to live outside the womb without assistance. My grandmother lives in a nursing home. She can't feed herself, so nurses feed her. But she reads and writes and loves to paint and make things. But since she can't survive without assistance I guess she's not viable and we should kill her. I think not.
Link was broken for me, sorry.
"Abortion survivors" is a very general term, and I think it leads a lot of people to buy extremely misinformed stories (not to mention exaggerated). If you go on any 'pro-life' site (which would obviously spoon-feed you that mumbo jumbo), it states on almost every page that 'no numbers can be calculated.' That's because the chances of any late trimester fetus surviving an abortion is next to zero. A fetus cannot survive outside the womb before 20 weeks. Most abortions occur before this time period. Anything after the 20th week is considered late and extremely risky.
And why the hell would you argue about killing your grandma?
We're not debating her viability, we already know she's living and has a conscience.
We're talking about fetuses and embryos.
1. I don't think scientists really know when a "baby" becomes a "baby." There have been studies on it saying that "fetus'" don't have emotions, and can't feel it if you abort them but I don't really trust them. Emotion is something that is perceived by yourself and others. Others perceive body language through body language and physical features. 2 cells may still have emotions(because they have a nucleous which is a little itty bitty brain) but they can't show it.
What? No. You have to have sentient thinking ability to have emotion. Two cells do not have any ability to think. At all.
Quote:
2. There is a really long waiting list to adopt a child in America. Fertility rates have gone down a lot in America and people are looking toward adoption. I know this because my best friend is trying to adopt and has been warned it could take years before her name nears the top of the list. So the whole argument that the children wouldn't be loved/wanted I don't agree with.
Yet, there are MILLIONS of children in the world who don't have families. There are so many more children that need home than there are people looking for children, so why can't they adopt any of them? Oh, yes, they are fresh-out-the-womb white babies.
Furthermore, I OWE NOTHING TO THESE WOMEN. My uterus is MINE ALONE! and no one has any rights to it but me. I shouldn't have to bare children that I don't want, can't afford, etc, just because some woman in some far off place wants it.
Quote:
3. Teenagers get pregnant all the time, should they ruin their lives by having a baby? <- who says they have to keep the baby if they have it?
Who says a pregnancy won't ruin their lives?
Quote:
4. When animals have sex, what are they doing? Trying to make babies. We're pretty much the only species on earth who has sex for the purpose of pleasure. But if you think about it, sex was MEANT to be a procreation thing, meaning if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. seriously. Birth control isn't perfect.
Well, that is a stupid thing to say. Many animals have sex for recreation. Hell, bonobos have forms of prostitution.
Sex is not just for the affluent couples who can afford a pregnancy. It is not just for those who want to have children. I have a clitoris, and you know what is for? Orgasms. That's it. It's the only organ in any human body which is for pleasure and pleasure alone. Sex has more than purpose, whether it be for love, fun, pleasure, or procreation.
Quote:
5. I wouldn't want to kill anything that is or even "would turn into" something as precious as a baby...
Good for you. Don't have an abortion.
However, you fleeting, silly wants and desires does not mean that you can control women's bodies and strip women of their rights and bodies. You have no right to anyone's body. Ever.
Quote:
6. For the argument that pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, there's a difference between a baby that has done nothing and a human who has comitted murder. I'm personally not for the death penalty but I think it's stupid to compare babies to murderers.
I think it's stupid that you completely dump the notion of human worth in the face of a born person. A murderer is still a person; should they not have rights?
Quote:
7. I'm not interested in controlling other peoples lives, I could care less about you or how you live. Don't flatter yourselves with thinking that I and all the other pro-lifers out there want to control you and that's all it's about. It's not. I'm interested in the welfare of an unborn child.
Ah, yes, but you have absolutely no interest in the life of a born person. A thinking person. A person with emotions, rights, families, and friends. You don't care about women, but you will strip people of their basic human rights for something with no thoughts and feelings.
Funny. You're the first pro-lifer I've seen come and out and say that you don't give a shit about the woman. Most at least try and pretend they do.
Quote:
Many pro-lifers are pro-life because of a faith or religion, which can't really be reasoned with or against. However there are practical reasons why abortion shouldn't be allowed.
Keep your religion out of my uterus. Your faith has no ability to take my rights from me. Any priest who tries to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body can go fuck himself; it's my body, not your religion's.
Quote:
One of my close friends, his mother died before he was born. She died as a result of high blood pressure due to her pregnancy(She was actually in the hospital for an induced partial birth abortion) and the baby was C-sectioned out to try and save the baby. He was saved. 2 years ago my friend pulled 3 children who were in grade school out of a flipped vehicle before it burst into flame.
Okay if the baby had been killed, that's 3 other lives that may have died. Yes, the mother died, which is sad. But even practical people think 4 lives are worth more than 1.
What the hell does this even have to do with abortion?
Really? Are you willing to have your tax dollars go toward the mother's prenatal care? Towards the welfare and food stamps the child and its family might need? To the education and health care costs of that child?
Unless and until you can honestly answer "Yes" to all of those questions, I call bullshit.
I can't honestly see how someone would be so incredbly close minded as to wanting abortions to become illigal. It just sad.
Now, I did get an abortion and I'm not afriad to say that. The funny thing is, that I didn't get looked down upon at all. I went to the doctors, got a ultrasound, made an appointment, and two weeks later got a medical D&C. It was that simple.
Now, when i got the abortion I was 18 and I had been with my boyfriend with two years. We both didn't want to have children, because we were both in school and he was on student loans. We had no money or time for a child. But just because of that didn't mean we weren't going to have sex. Sex in amazing, the only reason it's so frowned upon is because of religion. How did I get pregnet? I was switching birth control.
At times like this, I am so glad I live in Canada.
I can't honestly see how someone would be so incredbly close minded as to wanting abortions to become illigal. It just sad.
Now, I did get an abortion and I'm not afriad to say that. The funny thing is, that I didn't get looked down upon at all. I went to the doctors, got a ultrasound, made an appointment, and two weeks later got a medical D&C. It was that simple.
Now, when i got the abortion I was 18 and I had been with my boyfriend with two years. We both didn't want to have children, because we were both in school and he was on student loans. We had no money or time for a child. But just because of that didn't mean we weren't going to have sex. Sex in amazing, the only reason it's so frowned upon is because of religion. How did I get pregnet? I was switching birth control.
At times like this, I am so glad I live in Canada.
Nicely put! Shit happens, people should have the right to choose!
Okay if the baby had been killed, that's 3 other lives that may have died. Yes, the mother died, which is sad. But even practical people think 4 lives are worth more than 1.
Promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this debate, but I think this needs addressing. First off, "practical people" don't look simply at numbers. Something that does not even know it is alive and has never had a thought or feeling is not equal in worth to a feeling, thinking person who's developed relationships and an overall attachment to the world. Second, your own body disagrees with this logic. The body is more than willing to terminate a pregnancy if the mother is in any kind of danger -- a relatively minor illness, an injury, malnutrition, all can easily lead to a miscarriage. From a survival standpoint, this makes sense, as a female animal can, most likely, get pregnant again, but a fetus may not make it to full term anyway, and if it does, it may not survive childbirth, and if it does, it may not survive to a reproductive age.
Also, what, pray-tell, are these "practical reasons" abortion should be illegal? I used to be a non-Christian pro-lifer, so I'm familiar with a number of non-religious justifications for being pro-life, and they are all so weak that when I wrote an essay attempting to defend my stance, even I thought it sounded pathetic. In the end, what it really comes down to is, you are putting a non-feeling, non-thinking organism's existence over the life (both figuratively and literally) and feelings of a feeling, thinking woman, neither of which you have any intention of ever helping or taking care of or supporting, either emotionally or economically, and the real reason for this is that babies are a vital resource, and society tells you that to benefit from a resource, you must control it. And if the resource producers can decide not to produce, well then, you're not in control, are you?
1. I don't think scientists really know when a "baby" becomes a "baby." There have been studies on it saying that "fetus'" don't have emotions, and can't feel it if you abort them but I don't really trust them. Emotion is something that is perceived by yourself and others. Others perceive body language through body language and physical features. 2 cells may still have emotions(because they have a nucleous which is a little itty bitty brain) but they can't show it.
In this case, we should not eat, period, because animals AND plants have emotions. We should not breath, because air has emotion. We should not drink or bathe, because water has emotion. All we can do is sit still, try not to move, and hum to ourselves, cause sound doesn't have emotion, right? It sounds really silly, doesn't it? If you are so worried about cells having emotions, you, my friend, are in a LOT of trouble.
But your first point, that 'scientists doesn't really know when a "baby" becomes a "baby."' isn't true at all. Do you know why? Scientists don't care. Science isn't about emotion. Scientists don't imagine that every cell they study is screaming in agony, and scientists don't think of a fetus as a 'baby'. It's a fetus, a cluster of cells. Later, once it's viable, once it can survive outside the womb, it's a 'baby'. And that's past the point a legal abortion in any state can be preformed unless there are extenuating circumstance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
2. There is a really long waiting list to adopt a child in America. Fertility rates have gone down a lot in America and people are looking toward adoption. I know this because my best friend is trying to adopt and has been warned it could take years before her name nears the top of the list. So the whole argument that the children wouldn't be loved/wanted I don't agree with.
This is imagined as well. Let's try to get this straight, shall we? And I'll cover all of the feces you've excreted on the subject in the process.
Your best friend probably isn't wanting for "a baby". They're waiting for the baby, and probably being screened in the process. There is no list. Not in the "first come, first serve" sense.
A couple wishing to adopt has to be screened for suitability. This in and of itself can take years, depending on the agency. If they're adopting an older child, it might not take as long, because EVERYONE wants a new born baby. And even if they're working through the state and not an Independence agency, it could still be years before they're 'allowed' to adopt.
Added to this the fact that, and I'm going to be a little harsh about this to get the point across; Parents don't want a lemon. If a couple is looking to adopt through a private agency, they are paying a LOT of money, and they want their money's worth. They might even reject newborn babies for having skin too dark, eyes the wrong color, a cleft chin or any number of perceived imperfections. And why is this allowed? Because lemons get returned. The agencies don't want the unwanted kid coming back to them in 6 months when it's harder to push off on someone else. So you have a potential family waiting and waiting for the perfect child, and, I'm sorry to say, that child is probably white. Meaning the unwanted minorities, the defects and the rejects, DO get stuck into foster care. They don't ALL get adopted as soon as they're born. And once they get in, it's hard to get out. I know I've said this before, but it bares repeating. there are half a MILLION unwanted and unadopted children in the US alone right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
3. Teenagers get pregnant all the time, should they ruin their lives by having a baby? <- who says they have to keep the baby if they have it?
So, they should have the baby.. Drop out of school for a few months? Possibly get kicked out of their homes? Get abused by unhappy parents? All of this is fine, right? Sorry, it's been said before, you are ignoring the born person in favor of the unborn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
4. When animals have sex, what are they doing? Trying to make babies. We're pretty much the only species on earth who has sex for the purpose of pleasure. But if you think about it, sex was MEANT to be a procreation thing, meaning if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. seriously. Birth control isn't perfect.
There are at least 100 KNOWN species that have sex purely for recreation. But we can't forget masturbation, which implies recreation, right? Even dogs masturbate. What about homosexual relations in animals? That, obviously, isn't for procreation, right? Swans sometimes mate homosexually for life, and steal eggs from other swans nets. And this is just what we KNOW. Scientifically speaking, we haven't explored even a fraction of animal sexuality. But really, none of that matters. Do you know why? Because you yourself said "We're pretty much the only species on earth who has sex for the purpose of pleasure" right? So no matter what standards hold true for humming birds, we're not humming birds. We're human, so we do it for fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
5. I wouldn't want to kill anything that is or even "would turn into" something as precious as a baby...
Too late.
You didn't get pregnant when you ovulated last month, did you? Shoot, that could have turned into a baby!
But, seriously, what makes the baby precious? Because it's cute? Because it's life? Kittens are cutes and horseflies are alive. Maybe it's because it's HUMAN life, and that's a rare gift! Tell that to the 6.67 BILLION people living on earth. Is it because it's the mother's flesh and blood? So is cancer. Is it because the father wants the child to have it's name? Well we're not limited to 1 child in our lifetimes. So what, exactly, makes a baby so precious that it's survival is more important then the survival of the mother?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
6. For the argument that pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, there's a difference between a baby that has done nothing and a human who has comitted murder. I'm personally not for the death penalty but I think it's stupid to compare babies to murderers.
It's a good thing an embryo and a fetus isn't a baby then, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
7. I'm not interested in controlling other peoples lives, I could care less about you or how you live. Don't flatter yourselves with thinking that I and all the other pro-lifers out there want to control you and that's all it's about. It's not. I'm interested in the welfare of an unborn child.
I think this has been said as well. Your putting the welfare of the fetus above the welfare of the mother. But at least you admit it. A born life, a person who can contribute, think and feel.. No, not "potentially" feel, truly feel, is less important then a cluster of cells. But I love how you are so willing to admit that people aren't as important as cells.
reddeath26, baby, I love you, and I'm stealing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
Many pro-lifers are pro-life because of a faith or religion, which can't really be reasoned with or against.
Wrong.
Because the Christian bible AND the Qur'an both say that a fetus is not human until about 12 weeks. Just about every main stream religion has a point in gestation where the potential life isn't a "person". According to the bible, A Christian fetus can't be given a Christian burial if it's lost unless it "resembles a small person" which is about 12-14 weeks. Which is, not surprisingly, about the cut off date for abortions in most US states. Even religion has it's standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayzel
One of my close friends, his mother died before he was born. She died as a result of high blood pressure due to her pregnancy(She was actually in the hospital for an induced partial birth abortion) and the baby was C-sectioned out to try and save the baby. He was saved. 2 years ago my friend pulled 3 children who were in grade school out of a flipped vehicle before it burst into flame.
Okay if the baby had been killed, that's 3 other lives that may have died. Yes, the mother died, which is sad. But even practical people think 4 lives are worth more than 1.
I have one thing to say to that. If the person who caused the crash had been aborted, it would have never happened.
Phil, this is sheer brilliance, and I hope you forgive me if I steal it, print it and frame it.
Quote:
In the end, what it really comes down to is, you are putting a non-feeling, non-thinking organism's existence over the life (both figuratively and literally) and feelings of a feeling, thinking woman, neither of which you have any intention of ever helping or taking care of or supporting, either emotionally or economically, and the real reason for this is that babies are a vital resource, and society tells you that to benefit from a resource, you must control it. And if the resource producers can decide not to produce, well then, you're not in control, are you?
I'm normally not really a fan of Michael Moore, but I found this editorial to be right on the mark. I've excerpted some of my favorite lines.
Quote:
If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn't the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?
Quote:
If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver's license to 9 months older than what you've been telling everybody.
Quote:
What's even more amazing ... is that you can't even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn't one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!! The Right has scared them to death -- sometimes literally -- out of performing an otherwise legal, safe procedure. So, you can say women have "choice" in this country, but the reality is the "choice" doesn't exist in the majority of the nation. "Right to Life" has essentially won this battle.
In a science textbook I read, one drop of semen is 1.5 million sperm
I found this here
You know what this is? That's 1.5 million babies. In one drop.
When people masturbate, they kill children. Million and millions of children.
It's like abortion. All it takes, is one spermcell to make a child, and that one spermcell could become a child.
It already is a child, just at an early state.
Now tell me, what's the different between the child that is a spermcell, and the child that is in the womb?
Oh, but women don't have egg enough to all those children!
Drat. Everytime the women have their menstruation, without getting pregnant, a child just lost the chance to live. And you may say, that they have many many chances, but when that egg is gone, so are that spermcell. And that uniqe child.
What's the different between that, and abortion? That is one child's chance to get born, just as all those spermcells. But there will be another chance, another spermcell, and another menstruation.
I found this here
You know what this is? That's 1.5 million babies. In one drop.
When people masturbate, they kill children. Million and millions of children.
It's like abortion. All it takes, is one spermcell to make a child, and that one spermcell could become a child.
It already is a child, just at an early state.
Now tell me, what's the different between the child that is a spermcell, and the child that is in the womb?
Oh, but women don't have egg enough to all those children!
Drat. Everytime the women have their menstruation, without getting pregnant, a child just lost the chance to live. And you may say, that they have many many chances, but when that egg is gone, so are that spermcell. And that uniqe child.
What's the different between that, and abortion? That is one child's chance to get born, just as all those spermcells. But there will be another chance, another spermcell, and another menstruation.
Yup, very good visualization , and there are millions getting born every year. And many chances are passed up, I cant imagine how bloody crammed this world is if everyone of those children were born. And not to mention no abortions done anymore. That would create a crisis, no matter how much you pro-lifers deny it, it is very true. This world couldnt support that many people.
I found this here
You know what this is? That's 1.5 million babies. In one drop.
When people masturbate, they kill children. Million and millions of children.
It's like abortion. All it takes, is one spermcell to make a child, and that one spermcell could become a child.
It already is a child, just at an early state.
I love the way Monty Python fiddles around with logic and reasoning.
I actually never got to finish that movie as a whole. I only saw the beginning. :P
So yeah, the whole sperm-argument is quite a poor one. I'm not all there atm, so I won't present much of an argument. Just more of support, if I may, of that funneh vid.
Well firstly I apologize, as the video I am about to present in this post is nowhere near as amusing as the one m00finsan just shared with us.
Now I quite trust the reliability of Maoist Rebel News. As my previous experiences watching their videos have provided me with quite good coverage of events. But all the same, I *really* wanted them to be wrong in this instance. Unfortunately a search of my own seemed to verify that Obama did in fact sign a deal which spits in the face of female rights in the US of A. As demonstrated by this msnbc article. While you can argue I expect too much of the US of A. This struck me as particularly troublesome, as I am quite sure having abortion coverage as part of private insurance has been an option for quite some time! Source
Quote:
Originally Posted by msnbc
The leader of the anti-abortion bloc, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., didn't get to add stricter anti-abortion language to the underlying bill, but was satisfied by an executive order signed by Obama affirming current law and provisions in the legislation that ban federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.
Last edited by reddeath26; 03-27-2010 at 06:45 AM..
This is going to spring up something that has already been argued over. I can see it now. I'll back off on this one as I don't feel like repeating myself. :P
@MollyJean
Actually it was from The Meaning of Life. I think History of the World was a Mel Brooks film...
Yeah, meaning of life, you're right. Wow I suck!
@reddeath26:
By watching that video, it feels like they're trying to sensationalize old news. The Hyde Amendment was put into effect in the 70s and there are very good reasons for keeping it in place. I really can't argue with Obama upholding the order.
There are only a few states that allow state funded insurance to cover abortions, and I think only 4 of those are doing it willingly, the other 10 or so (I forgot numbers) are only doing it because of court rulings. And I don't really disagree with this. Not because I, personally, have a problem with my tax money being spent on abortions.. I could think of worse things, but because it is such a controversial procedure, and if pro-lifers where forced in all states to let their tax money pay for abortions, the establishment would be challenged even more then it is now. Making it easier might just make it harder, if you get my meaning.
Now, Medicaid and state funded insurance, in most states, doesn't cover abortions, but private insurance, Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser Permanente and the like, might cover it, depending on the state and codes. The Hyde Amendment applies to government funded insurance (tax funded insurance), not private firms. And, in almost every state, Medicaid and state funded insurance DOES cover rape, incest and life threatening pregnancies. As for those who can only get state funded insurance and are unable to afford abortions, there are a lot of programs and funds (None religions) that can be accessed through abortion clinics to help with payments. A typical abortion costs 400-500 dollars, just about anywhere in the US. Some of these funds can cover up to 75% of the cost, which is what Medicaid would cover for most women in those states that cover abortion.
The Hyde Amendment doesn't take away anyone's rights. It doesn't restrict access to abortion clinics and doesn't remove the ability for a woman to obtain an abortion in any way. It just doesn't force tax payers to pay for the abortion. I was a little put off by the way that video interpreted that fact. Sorry, I'm not a big fan of spin. The only bad thing it does is force a woman to pay for her own abortion or seek alternative aid.
Last edited by MollyJean; 03-27-2010 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: everything changes
