I'll just join the copy & paste train and leave this here:
Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh is under fire for comments he made Thursday night in his final debate against Democrat Tammy Duckworth -- he said he opposes abortion "without exception," even when the life of the mother is at stake.
The trouble came when the Tea Partier doubled down on his position with the media afterward:
There's no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason.
The facts Walsh used to justify his position have been proven absolutely false. In fact, studies show that pregnancy-related deaths for women are on the rise.
pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?
Also in pro-life land, abortion tends to refer to the elective procedure which is not done for any other medical reason. If a pregnant woman had chemotherapy and the unborn child died that wouldn't be considered abortion, nor would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.
Phototoxin wrote: pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?
However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.
Phototoxin wrote: pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?
Yes?
Unborn children have no intrinsic value, but pregnant women do. Let the child die and save the person who can become a producer in a shorter time span.
It isn't like we shy away from letting children die.
mattyrm wrote: Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?
We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.
Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!
We unfortunately still have a Puritanical streak in this country, and a lot of Americans belong to extremist Christian sects.
There's also polling out there that shows a convicted child molester would have as much chance of getting elected to something as an avowed atheist would in America - which is to say, hardly any chance at all.
I live in a religious family, and im more pro-choice(Its more that i think abortion is deplorable, but i realize that things can get worse), But I do give to Pro-life that work towards providing support to mothers with unplanned children, and not illegalizing it.I think if we truly want to stop abortions, we need to make it a world where not child is unwanted and all can be taken care of, that that is utopian.
But living in a religious family and being a guy who is pro-choice and your family you have right wing nutters is kinda like how i think abortions are. They treat you as if you have no moral compass, as if you are deplorable, and that you live only for yourself.
I am a fairly conservative guy, and by Thor's might beard am I tired of 'conservative' becoming 'religious nutjob' in this country. I can't in good conscience back the democrats, as I get older I realize that a lot of the libertarian ideals I used to support are untenable... and good heavens what the republicans have become is ridiculous.
I really don't have a point or any solutions or anything.... gods this sucks.
You'd think Republicans would look at who wants to have abortions and start backing it whole heartedly, just throw buckets of money at opening abortion clinics, and then encourage all thier little evangelist daughters and sons to breed like rabbits...
Not to mention that if they were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, they would logically wholeheartedly support free universal access to contraception.
Mannahnin wrote: Not to mention that if they were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, they would logically wholeheartedly support free universal access to contraception.
If Republicans were serious about reducing abortions... they'd advocate all boyz pre-High School to get Vasectomy.
Then. the kidz can feth like bunnies w/o consequence... 'cuz, they'll feth anyways.
Vulcan wrote: The fun part is, even though Republican politicians SAY they are against abortion, they never ACT on a nation level to outlaw it.
Well, it depends on which part of the party you're talking about.
The "liars for Jesus" part would gladly outlaw abortion, along with a lot of other things on their conservative religious agenda.
The "rich get richer" part doesn't care about anything that doesn't involve making life even more awesome for rich people, so they just pretend to care about abortion long enough to get the idiot social conservatives to check the "R" box on election day.
The main reason that not much gets done on a national level is that the "rich get richer" branch is more powerful than the "liars for Jesus" branch (I guess focusing on accumulating wealth and power works?) and gets to determine the national party agenda. If you look at the state level you see a lot of restrictions on abortion, with the intent of creating a ban in all but name, and the people responsible would be perfectly happy to do it at a national level if they had the chance.
Phototoxin wrote: pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?
Also in pro-life land, abortion tends to refer to the elective procedure which is not done for any other medical reason. If a pregnant woman had chemotherapy and the unborn child died that wouldn't be considered abortion, nor would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.
It really doesn't matter why women want to have abortions. They can have them for the lulz as far as I'm concerned. It's also one of the only easy ways of getting excommunicated, for people who convert to sanity. The Catholic Church is so crazy about it that they excommunicated a nine year old girl for having an abortion after being raped by her grandfather. These people just want the fetus high and abortion centers tightly closed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?
We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.
Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!
It's because there's too many weird religious people here. They only vote for other religious weirdos, and only want them to march in spirit within our ranks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, sometimes to preserve the sanctity of life, you have to let pregnant women die.
LOL, that's about how they think. They would rather see women dead than have fetuses aborted by the red front and reactionaries.
Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives. Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for the making of children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies. That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, because it affect their families, like abortion, they think that it will destroy the carfully constructed world view they made for themselves.
As a warning: I have experience working in the women's centers that allegedly exist to help women have an option besides abortion. Often their true goal is to close Planned Parenthood locations and little else. I talked to a fairly rich, powerful guy who is on the board for a couple of such centers who offered someone I know a position as director of one. His plan was to open it up next to a PP and close it immediately after they had made them fold, leaving all of the women screwed. The general banter in the two I've been around is more of complaining about what ahs to be done for women, but "at least they're not supporting Planned Parenthood (which is a synonym for 'getting an abortion')." There are newsletters and prolife magazines that run somewhat underground and they get stacks of them every month with headlines like "We closed another one!" and little to no content about actually helping women. I'm not accusing everyone who's ever helped at a women's center of being heartless and scheming, but I am saying many of them are. Quote one higher up: "With Obamacare even children can get healthcare! It's ridiculous." There's also lots of inter-denominational conflict and competition between centers, often to the detriment of the women who are supposed to be getting help.
FWIW, I don't shop at their resale shops anymore and won't donate to one unless I know their real stance. Much of the money that may be donated to help with supplies or training women is going towards shutting down other places that help women, which is horrible in my book. If you are more concerned about "souls" than reality, please donate willy-nilly because your ends are being served :/
Kilkrazy wrote: Why are social conservatives so concerned about other people's families?
In the best of cases, because they think that all people should have a healthy, prosperous, and dignified life. Surely it's not far-fetched to believe that a two-parent household (consisting of both biological parents) not subject to the sort of financial and social pressures that lead many women to have abortions is the proper template for that? Now that the individual is often considered outside of the context of her or his family relationships, thanks at least in part to the break down of that template, I suppose the correlation is harder to see or rather that we've become very sensitive to the way this template might in exceptional cases create injustices to the individual that we have forgotten how much good it does. Seeing divorces and custody cases in a professional capacity has led me to not forget one while thinking of the other.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives.
Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies.
That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.
No fault divorce shattered that little fairy tale a couple decades back. If they want to perserve the sanctity of marriage, they should look into that.
Especially since most gay and lesbian couples I've met tend to be much more committed to each other than the average straight couple.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives.
Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies.
That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.
No fault divorce shattered that little fairy tale a couple decades back. If they want to perserve the sanctity of marriage, they should look into that.
Especially since most gay and lesbian couples I've met tend to be much more committed to each other than the average straight couple.
Yup... and I concur on both points. 'specially the No Fault Divorces...
The gay couple I know are fricking hilarious... they just have a unique outlook in life that's enlightening...
d-usa wrote: I'll just join the copy & paste train and leave this here:
Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh is under fire for comments he made Thursday night in his final debate against Democrat Tammy Duckworth -- he said he opposes abortion "without exception," even when the life of the mother is at stake.
The trouble came when the Tea Partier doubled down on his position with the media afterward:
There's no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason.
The facts Walsh used to justify his position have been proven absolutely false. In fact, studies show that pregnancy-related deaths for women are on the rise.
Well, allowing abortion for the health of the mother has something of a track record in being used to allow any and all abortions. Here in Western Australia the only law in place allowing abortion says it can be performed only when the health of the mother is in danger... and abortion is safer than pregnancy therefore every abortion can be justified and the effect is as if the process is entirely legal.
Now, that doesn't explain any of the crazy not science about pretending pregnancy doesn't have dangers or anything like that, but the reality is that if you want to stop abortion then you either have to remove or heavily restrict any exception for the health of the mother... which is, of course, really just another reason that stopping abortion is probably just a bad idea.
Vulcan wrote: And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.
Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.
Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.
Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.
Vulcan wrote: And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.
Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.
Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.
That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.
Thought: Maybe we should have a "Politician said something mind numbingly stupid" mega thread as opposed to starting a flurry of new ones every press conference?
I'd also like to reiterate my support for gay marriage, they have the right to be as miserable as everyone else.
Vulcan wrote: And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.
Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.
Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.
There is that, of course.
The conservaitves would just say 'without no-fault divorce they'd think a bit harder about getting married in the first place!' To which the obvious reply is, 'yeah, they'd just shack up for a while instead."
Mannahnin wrote: Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.
Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.
Yeah, the private eye in all those hardboiled film noir was actually a real. Except instead of investigating murders and cracking crime rings, he was actually just looking through people's trash, and following around someone's spouse, looking for proof of fault in a marriage.
Mannahnin wrote: Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.
Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.
No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.
Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.
Mannahnin wrote: No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.
Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.
Mannahnin wrote: No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.
Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.
Ahhh sorry wasn't tracking. On a side note, Hi! I'm part of the statistic!
I'll let you all know how round two goes if it ever happens XD
Indeed. I was of like mind of you - that the Larry Kings with many marriages throw off the numbers. However, I just went to find a source, and the best one I found in a few minutes of searching actually says the opposite - to wit, that "The probability of a first marriage reaching its 20th anniversary was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006–2010. These levels are consistent with those reported in the NSFG in previous years, and in vital statistics data three decades ago".
No, you're wrong. Debunked in the 70s wrong. That original study basically took the number of divorces happening in a year and the number of marriages happening in the same year, and threw math, good sense and reason out the window and declared dividing one by the other would give you a rate of successful marriage.
The chart below will show you not only did the divorce rate only just exceed 50% for all marriages, it's been dropping for three decades;
If your male you haven't lived life yet till your first divorce On number three now. SHe's keeping me since she feel sorry for me with all my injuries sustain from Afghanistan....of course I can throw the sad puppy eyes look to....clincher was I can cook and know my way aroud the kitchen ....I love her still even when she popped my shoulder out of joint last week.
No, you're wrong. Debunked in the 70s wrong. That original study basically took the number of divorces happening in a year and the number of marriages happening in the same year, and threw math, good sense and reason out the window and declared dividing one by the other would give you a rate of successful marriage.
The chart below will show you not only did the divorce rate only just exceed 50% for all marriages, it's been dropping for three decades;
Mannahnin wrote: Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.
Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.
Yeah, the private eye in all those hardboiled film noir was actually a real. Except instead of investigating murders and cracking crime rings, he was actually just looking through people's trash, and following around someone's spouse, looking for proof of fault in a marriage.
Sometimes it was a sham. One spouse would agree to be "caught" with a "lover" in order to create evidence of infidelity to allow the divorce.
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said
I would not cast aspersion on people's genuine religious or moral thoughts on this topic.
That said, society in general has decided that the sadness of abortion moderated within the cloak of the law is better than the evils of back street abortions, etc. which have been so widely experienced in the past.
I think there are many people who think it is a choice between widespread abortion on demand and no abortion, which is a false prospect at both sides.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, society in general has decided that the sadness of abortion moderated within the cloak of the law is better than the evils of back street abortions, etc. which have been so widely experienced in the past.
In my own experience, there are quite a few religious people who consider abortion a social evil but understand that a social evil cast into the light is better dealt with than left to the shadows.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, society in general has decided that the sadness of abortion moderated within the cloak of the law is better than the evils of back street abortions, etc. which have been so widely experienced in the past.
In my own experience, there are quite a few religious people who consider abortion a social evil but understand that a social evil cast into the light is better dealt with than left to the shadows.
Thankfully there are only a few people left that truly believe that a back street abortion gone bad is exactly what a woman like "that" deserves.
Abortion is never necessary to save a womans life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care. I don't see the logical reason other than 'I don't want a child' and in most cases 'I don't want to take responsibility for my actions'
Anyone with an ounce of sense would realise what he meant was that the child is gifted life via God. God does not intend rape, for the rapist presumably had free will. It's interesting how supposedly open minded liberals immediately assume the worst.
Phototoxin wrote: Abortion is never necessary to save a womans life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care. I don't see the logical reason other than 'I don't want a child' and in most cases 'I don't want to take responsibility for my actions'
Anyone with an ounce of sense would realise what he meant was that the child is gifted life via God. God does not intend rape, for the rapist presumably had free will. It's interesting how supposedly open minded liberals immediately assume the worst.
Yeah yeah, the child is the gift. Sorry about the crappy delivery of the package though...
Phototoxin wrote: Countries without abortion have better maternal care.
Could you please provide where you find this evidence. I have never heard it before, and am very curious as to where the studies took place.
This countries colored in orange, red, and yellow are where abortion is illegal. Where those studies done in the middle east, africa, or south america?
Phototoxin wrote: The UN says Ireland has some of the best maternal care and a low rate of maternal death.
That is anecdotal evidence. Your cherry picking one country out of all of the ones where abortion is illegal and using that as your sample.
If that logic were sound, then would not the middle east, africa and south america also have some of the lowest rates of maternal death -- instead of the highest?
Look, I get wanting to preserve all human life. That's why I push for getting a colony on Mars. That's why I push for responsible enviromental positions.
But you got to base your arguments on something strong than anecdotal evidence. Take a page from whembly's book -- he makes excellent cases for anti-abortion positions.
So abortion cures all of these things. THE MIRACLE CURE!
It might just be my years of training in the medical field and a decade of experience speaking but....most problems caused by pregnancy are often resolved by termination of the pregnancy.
I have seen these problems first hand, so I don't take them lightly. I have seen mothers and parents to be try to make that decision and either terminate their pregnancy or have a mother sacrifice her life for the child. During one of my clinical rotations in school we had a woman come in who had a spontaneous miscarriage at home at 15 weeks. When she came to the hospital she brought the stillborn fetus with her and all of us had the opportunity to go to the lab and see the child-that-wasn't. Anti-abortion folks don't need to show me the graphic "here is a fetus that was killed" pictures because I have held one in my hands. I'm not typing this to seem tough, just trying to share that I am not removed and unaware of the results of abortions.
But please, don't let me disturb your factual evidence and extensive experience with the subject at hand.
So abortion cures all of these things. THE MIRACLE CURE!
It might just be my years of training in the medical field and a decade of experience speaking but....most problems caused by pregnancy are often resolved by termination of the pregnancy.
I have seen these problems first hand, so I don't take them lightly. I have seen mothers and parents to be try to make that decision and either terminate their pregnancy or have a mother sacrifice her life for the child. During one of my clinical rotations in school we had a woman come in who had a spontaneous miscarriage at home at 15 weeks. When she came to the hospital she brought the stillborn fetus with her and all of us had the opportunity to go to the lab and see the child-that-wasn't. Anti-abortion folks don't need to show me the graphic "here is a fetus that was killed" pictures because I have held one in my hands. I'm not typing this to seem tough, just trying to share that I am not removed and unaware of the results of abortions.
But please, don't let me disturb your factual evidence and extensive experience with the subject at hand.
At my school, College Campus, in the library quad they put up Giant, and i mean giant Signs of aborted fetuses. they did this for 3 days, the most heart breaking thing i saw as a girl may age supporting thing. Whats worse, they compared abortion to, lynching of black people. By the third day i put my earphones in, even though i dont have any music player so they wouldnt bother me, But it was kinda cool to see people tying the mouths by deciding to take tunrs talking to all the protesters so they couldnt hand out their pamphlets.
It was an emotional day holding that fetus. I wish nobody would ever need or have an abortion. But I will always fight to have the legal option to do so and I will always try to educate people who don't know what they are talking about when they make stupid arguments against it.
Phototoxin wrote: Abortion is never necessary to save a womans life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care. I don't see the logical reason other than 'I don't want a child' and in most cases 'I don't want to take responsibility for my actions'
Woohoo more people for my ignore list!
I just don't get why anyone thinks they get to control someone else's body and decisions? Mind your own fething business.
Live your own life how you want, don't press it on others.
d-usa wrote: It was an emotional day holding that fetus. I wish nobody would ever need or have an abortion. But I will always fight to have the legal option to do so and I will always try to educate people who don't know what they are talking about when they make stupid arguments against it.
As i have said before, I dont like abortion, not one lick, but sometimes it is necessary for the mother. I remember this movie we watched where a war widow slept with her husbands brother or something, because of that she would have to take alot of time off of work for the kid, But she couldnt get an abortion because it was the 50's, she ended up dying from a back allley procedure that they showed in full detail. I remember thinking "If this women got the help see needed, she could have kept the child and her life" and i resolved the best way to stop abortion is to help the mothers who truly want to keep the baby keep it and provide care. Like at my parish there is a project that gives free baby supplies to mothers.
Also a decent reason to allow abortion. Women who want one, will get one, and if its illegal that means a special visit from the clothing hanger in an unclean environment possible with some hack who never even went to medical school and might overcharge.
Found the clip i was talking about, Very graphic, I think this should be shown in every sex ed class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbsAGNwdZI Im not posting it on the site.
Heart disease, accidents, there's a veritable plethora reasons why a termination might be deemed necessary on medical grounds. Uterine tears, entopic pregnancies, traumatic injuries, shock, sepsis, cancers.
So abortion cures all of these things. THE MIRACLE CURE!
Also most etopic pregnancies die and then can be removed.
The things you type, blow my mind.
Listen, you are a creationist, so we already know you can't be talked out of anything with logic, but trust us, there are plenty of things that can kill a mother if she carries the fetus the full length of pregnancy, so instead of coming on and being necky and typing things like "So abortion MIRACLE CURE!" which nobody said, why don't you just stop commenting on things that you aren't interested in?
Things you will never ever change your mind about, things you aren't interested in having discourse in, because you have already made your mind up (world is 5000 years old) and you aren't interested in a discussion about. Also, stop telling bare faced lies about what other people have said, its a silly thing to do because everything that has been typed is right there on the screen. You can scroll up and have a quick look if you like, its not difficult. Look I'll do it.
Phototoxin wrote: Abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care.
You are either a bare faced liar, or you are staggeringly ignorant.
d-usa wrote: It was an emotional day holding that fetus. I wish nobody would ever need or have an abortion. But I will always fight to have the legal option to do so and I will always try to educate people who don't know what they are talking about when they make stupid arguments against it.
As i have said before, I dont like abortion, not one lick, but sometimes it is necessary for the mother. I remember this movie we watched where a war widow slept with her husbands brother or something, because of that she would have to take alot of time off of work for the kid, But she couldnt get an abortion because it was the 50's, she ended up dying from a back allley procedure that they showed in full detail. I remember thinking "If this women got the help see needed, she could have kept the child and her life" and i resolved the best way to stop abortion is to help the mothers who truly want to keep the baby keep it and provide care. Like at my parish there is a project that gives free baby supplies to mothers.
Bloody hell mate.. come on. Just think for a second, does anyone LIKE abortion!?
If you think they do, you have been reading too many of those ridiculous Republi-Jesus-Creationist pamphlets that say things like "Democrats are in love with abortion" and such.
Absolutely nobody is in love with it. No woman goes "I hope I get knocked up again this weekend so I can get my ovaries vacuumed again! woo-hoo!"
The fact is, its a heartbreaking decision to make, nobody but a lunatic would make it easy, and nobody is suggesting that abortions are a good thing. But at the end of the fething day, its a womans bastard body, and some crusty old Religious bigot with as much Scientific knowledge as a pull-along duck, should not have the right to force his own narrow opinions onto everybody else.
How can people who live in a country that crows on about freedom so bloody often even debate this?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh i know no one likes it, but i know alot of republicans who think if you support it, you must like it.
That's because everyone assumes the false dilemma (oh look at that) that if you aren't against something you absolutely MUST be for it. It's politics one oh one, I.E. why every politician has a 'black and white' position on hot button topics. If they don't specify being for or against everyone just assumes, even when they painstakingly spell out their position.
@All: Remember that personal attacks are not allowed. If you cannot participate in a discussion on a topic without resorting to personal attacks, leave it be.
mattyrm wrote: It absolutely isn't. Did you actually read the wikipedia entry?
You're joking right?
A false dilemma .. is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
mattyrm wrote: You are either a bare faced liar, you are staggeringly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or you are trolling us.
See? All you need to do is add one or more examples and prove the false dilemma.
I think if we start a new thread every time a Republican says something incredibly stupid about how they basically think women are just incubators, eventually this forum is going to be filled with nothing but.
Seriously. A conservative has opinion on rape that borders on insanity? Wow. "ZZzzzzzzzzzzz, sky is blue, water is wet, why is this news?"
Why is anything news. Not much reinventing of the wheel going on these days. Probably 99% (exaggeration imminent) of the threads on this forum are already covered ground
d-usa wrote: It was an emotional day holding that fetus. I wish nobody would ever need or have an abortion. But I will always fight to have the legal option to do so and I will always try to educate people who don't know what they are talking about when they make stupid arguments against it.
The most succinct summery of my stance on abortion possible. I don't like it, but it's not my choice to make, and it certainly isn't my choice to say you can't do it.
d-usa wrote: It was an emotional day holding that fetus. I wish nobody would ever need or have an abortion. But I will always fight to have the legal option to do so and I will always try to educate people who don't know what they are talking about when they make stupid arguments against it.
The most succinct summery of my stance on abortion possible. I don't like it, but it's not my choice to make, and it certainly isn't my choice to say you can't do it.
I'll choose D please, all of the above are correct.
Contraceptives on the most basic level are not a bad thing.
Some contraceptives, however, do result in the death of the embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterine wall. Thus on a technical level it could be seen as an abortion pill/whatever method its taken as. With the assumption that life begins at conception.
IMO, anything that prevents fertilization is perfectly fine. Anything that prevents the already fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall is immoral as it causes a human death.
There needs to be a definitive line as to exactly how a contraceptive works, and they should be clearly labeled as such.
Anway, all these chemical contraceptives are rather unnecessary. Condoms are sooo cheap and easy to get there is no reason people shouldn't use them in preference to other methods. They're so cheap in fact that just about everyone is giving them away.
Here on my college for example, there are no less then 10 locations you can get free condoms. Thats 10 locations that arn't more then 3 minutes walk from each other.
And then a pack of 20 at a drug store is, what, $2.50?
AustonT wrote: You'd think Republicans would look at who wants to have abortions and start backing it whole heartedly, just throw buckets of money at opening abortion clinics, and then encourage all thier little evangelist daughters and sons to breed like rabbits...
Could it be that they are holding a specific moral point that abortion is wrong, no matter who gets one, and not trying to have a double standard
Grey Templar wrote: Anway, all these chemical contraceptives are rather unnecessary. Condoms are sooo cheap and easy to get there is no reason people shouldn't use them in preference to other methods.
Many women use the various contraceptive pills to prevent menstrual cramps and the fact that they have to bleed for several days a month without them. Being safer from becoming infected with unwanted babies is an added bonus.
So yeah, plenty of reasons people would take the pill. If there was an equivalent pain/bleeding/etc for males and there was a pill which would prevent it, I'd sure as hell use it rather than just using physical barrier protection.
Besides, if that barrier breaks, you have another line of protection, further reducing the risks of becoming pregnant.
How do so many people think a cluster of cells is a human life?
You know, the female body can dump fertilized eggs out too, simply because they don't attach to the uterine wall.
Are all of those females murderers?
Every sperm a man has could potentially fertilize an egg, are they committing mass infanticide every time they polish one off? Or are they simply also clusters of cells?
Grey Templar wrote: Anway, all these chemical contraceptives are rather unnecessary. Condoms are sooo cheap and easy to get there is no reason people shouldn't use them in preference to other methods. They're so cheap in fact that just about everyone is giving them away.
But some women want to feel the skin of the penis rather than latex and some men want to feel the soft, moist texture of a warm vagina rather than latex.
You know, the female body can dump fertilized eggs out too, simply because they don't attach to the uterine wall.
Are all of those females murderers?
Every sperm a man has could potentially fertilize an egg, are they committing mass infanticide every time they polish one off? Or are they simply also clusters of cells?
*sigh,
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
2) Sperm and Eggs are not human life unless they are combined. Before that they are simply part of the person's body they come from. They are cells, but not a seperate life form until they combine. Its really not that hard of a concept.
You know, the female body can dump fertilized eggs out too, simply because they don't attach to the uterine wall.
Are all of those females murderers?
Every sperm a man has could potentially fertilize an egg, are they committing mass infanticide every time they polish one off? Or are they simply also clusters of cells?
*sigh,
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
2) Sperm and Eggs are not human life unless they are combined. Before that they are simply part of the person's body they come from. They are cells, but not a seperate life form until they combine. Its really not that hard of a concept.
And up until a certain point, so is the fertilized egg, it just a clump of cells.
But some women want to feel the skin of the penis rather than latex and some men want to feel the soft, moist texture of a warm vagina rather than latex.
You know, the female body can dump fertilized eggs out too, simply because they don't attach to the uterine wall.
Are all of those females murderers?
Every sperm a man has could potentially fertilize an egg, are they committing mass infanticide every time they polish one off? Or are they simply also clusters of cells?
*sigh,
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
2) Sperm and Eggs are not human life unless they are combined. Before that they are simply part of the person's body they come from. They are cells, but not a seperate life form until they combine. Its really not that hard of a concept.
I can see I won't get anywhere with you. I find your position to be backwards and crazy, and at odds with certified scientific doctors, rather than religious gut feelings.
Grey Templar wrote: Anway, all these chemical contraceptives are rather unnecessary. Condoms are sooo cheap and easy to get there is no reason people shouldn't use them in preference to other methods. They're so cheap in fact that just about everyone is giving them away.
But some women want to feel the skin of the penis rather than latex and some men want to feel the soft, moist texture of a warm vagina rather than latex.
Maybe thats the drawback for wanting to ensure you don't get pregnant.
And I'm sure there are chemical contraceptives that prevent conception without causing the death of the embryo.
Did you mean eggs instead of embryo? I was thrown off because why would someone need a contraceptive (specifically designed) that prevents conception if they're already carrying an embryo
Ok, imagine this, you and your GF/BF/Booty call are getting busy, passionate and everything, the guy stops and says, "Let me put on the spermicide/condom"
Boom, Mood Killed.
LordofHats wrote: Did you mean eggs instead of embryo? I was thrown off because why would someone need a contraceptive (specifically designed) that prevents conception if they're already carrying an embryo
I meant something that prevents fertilization as opposed to preventing a viable living embryo from attaching to the uterine wall and killing it.
Looking back I messed up the sentence.
It should have been something like "I am sure you can easily use a chemical that prevents fertilization as opposed to something that prevents the already fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall(which kills it)"
Here on my college for example, there are no less then 10 locations you can get free condoms. Thats 10 locations that arn't more then 3 minutes walk from each other.
And then a pack of 20 at a drug store is, what, $2.50?
Magnums are $18 for 24, but that's still cheaper than a rug rat.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templat, do you eat eggs? Did you know some eggs can be fertilized but put in the cold so they dont develop?
Are you murddering baby chickens?
Hah, you strayed into my turf. I know all about chickens.
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
If you think human life and animal life are no different then you wouldn't eat fertilized eggs. And you certaintly wouldn't even consider Abortion or any form of Birth Control that kills the Embryo because with that set of morals both would be considered wrong.
So if you don't eat fertilized eggs because you don't want to kill a baby chicken, then you can't also say Abortion is ok. unless you have a set of morals where human life is below animal life.
Chongara wrote: So what about those women that have embryos that fail implant and get flushed out with menstruation like so much used uterine lining?
Is that like manslaughter?
What about a lady that miscarries when she gets into car accident? Should we be writing her up for motor vehicular homicide?
I mean you can just find a positively staggering number of crimes to pin women with once you start considering embryos & fetuses full persons.
As I already said, it is no different then an accident.
The difference is deliberatly causing an action rather then it happening naturally or by chance.
The women who has an egg fail to implant through no concious action of her own is not commiting murder. That requires you to deliberatly do something.
If the egg fails to implant because of some natural fluke its nobodys fault.
Its like the example I gave earlier. If someone accidentally falls off a piece of scaffolding because they tripped over a power cord someone had left lying around, its an accident. Where as if the person had instead pushed them off the scaffolding it would be murder.
Except for a heartbeat.
And eating/breathing. Many of them share the same vertebrate structure as you.
Many of them also have higher level feelings and emotions. If you had a pet dog you would know this.
Your a smart guy GT. It suprises me to see a comment like that come from you.
Except for a heartbeat.
And eating/breathing. Many of them share the same vertebrate structure as you.
Many of them also have higher level feelings and emotions. If you had a pet dog you would know this.
Your a smart guy GT. It suprises me to see a comment like that come from you.
I believe the standard line is that non-human life does not have a soul, and is thus intrinsically inferior to human life.
Which I think is a load of crap, but there you are.
streamdragon wrote: So women who take the morning after pill are guilty of first degree murder?
If it causes the death of an embryo, yes.
So to follow up, if I cause an auto accident, and this woman suffers a miscarriage, I am guilty of manslaughter?
Yes, involuntary manslaughter. You caused the death of a human being, albeit unintentionally. And I'm sure you would be horrified at what you had just done.
You wouldn't be charged with murder, you didn't intend to kill anyone. But you did in an accident that you caused.
This is totally different to body processes, or any number of reasons, that a women has no control over that cause a miscarriage or the Embryo to never implant.
Except for a heartbeat.
And eating/breathing. Many of them share the same vertebrate structure as you.
Many of them also have higher level feelings and emotions. If you had a pet dog you would know this.
Your a smart guy GT. It suprises me to see a comment like that come from you.
I believe the standard line is that non-human life does not have a soul, and is thus intrinsically inferior to human life.
Which I think is a load of crap, but there you are.
I had to get my soul removed due to health concerns does that make me not a human as well, or are there options to get soul implants?
Except for a heartbeat.
And eating/breathing. Many of them share the same vertebrate structure as you.
Many of them also have higher level feelings and emotions. If you had a pet dog you would know this.
Your a smart guy GT. It suprises me to see a comment like that come from you.
I believe the standard line is that non-human life does not have a soul, and is thus intrinsically inferior to human life.
Which I think is a load of crap, but there you are.
I've known horses who were more intelligent then the average human I interact with these days.
Can't we all just agree that humans are our own kind, and its only natural that we care a bit more about organisms of our own species than others? It's not like the rest of the animal kingdom is any different. Most species tend to be more discriminating towards others than they are towards their own.
streamdragon wrote: I believe the standard line is that non-human life does not have a soul, and is thus intrinsically inferior to human life.
Which I think is a load of crap, but there you are.
Anyone who believes that must lie awake in fear at night that we might encounter intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Imagine if they treated us like those others treat animals....
Can't we all just agree that humans are our own kind, and its only natural that we care a bit more about organisms of our own species than others? It's not like the rest of the animal kingdom is any different. Most species tend to be more discriminating towards others than they are towards their own.
I've always felt that human rights come before animal rights, I love animals but there are a lot of problems with humanity as well.
LordofHats wrote: Can't we all just agree that humans are our own kind, and its only natural that we care a bit more about organisms of our own species than others?
streamdragon wrote: I believe the standard line is that non-human life does not have a soul, and is thus intrinsically inferior to human life.
Which I think is a load of crap, but there you are.
Anyone who believes that must lie awake in fear at night that we might encounter intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Imagine if they treated us like those others treat animals....
I don't believe aliens exist so that solves that. It just makes for damn fine entertainment.
And anyway, if said Aliens did come here and were so advanced, I really wouldn't expect them to treat us simple humans better then animals. Of course in this case it would just be one species believing it is superior to all other species.
LordofHats wrote: Most species tend to be more discriminating towards others than they are towards their own.
Except dolphins, which have been known to help humans in the ocean.
But also are one of the only species known to rape and murder besides humans.
I've seen documentries of primates doing the same.
Canines (wolves) and felines (lions) have done the same.
Most of those cases are over territory which equals food sources.....of course this is getting off topic
Grey Templar wrote: I don't believe aliens exist so that solves that. It just makes for damn fine entertainment.
So you think that out of the billiions of solar systems in the universe, there was something magical about the earth that made life appear here and nowhere else.
This is from the hubble telescope. This is a patch of the night sky the sky of a pin. The next time your looking up at the sky, imagine all the galixies out there. The billions of worlds.
Grey Templar wrote: And anyway, if said Aliens did come here and were so advanced, I really wouldn't expect them to treat us simple humans better then animals. Of course in this case it would just be one species believing it is superior to all other species.
You should watch more science shows.
As I mentioned earlier, why do animals (and humans) complete and kill each other. Resources. Food and land.
Humankind if a few hundred years from developing nantotechnology (as described in the book "The Diamond Age"). When one has built machines to assemble molecues, you can stick a piece of dirt into your transmuter and pull out steaming bacon.
That's why aliens would not either care about us, or not want to take the earth. The simply would not need the resources.
(assuming they could survive in an oxygen filled environment. Oxygen is horribly corrosive. Look at what it does to iron. Cut an apple open and watch it go to work)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, imagine this, you and your GF/BF/Booty call are getting busy, passionate and everything, the guy stops and says, "Let me put on the spermicide/condom"
Boom, Mood Killed.
I don't know if you remember the Femidom which was marketed in Europe but failed as a barrier method of contraception to help prevent AIDS.
It has been very successful in much of Africa, because it allows women to take control of contraception, not having tor ely on men to use condoms.
The interesting thing is, according to an article I read, that it has become part of the foreplay.
When the wife goes to put in her Femidom, the husband knows that sex is on the menu, and gets excited.
Grey Templar wrote: Until you can prove animals have souls they are not worth the same as a human.
Do you have any proof that humans (or indeed anything else) have a soul? I mean proof other than it says so in [insert your religious text here]. You know, actual proof.
As I mentioned earlier, why do animals (and humans) complete and kill each other. Resources. Food and land.
Humankind if a few hundred years from developing nantotechnology (as described in the book "The Diamond Age"). When one has built machines to assemble molecues, you can stick a piece of dirt into your transmuter and pull out steaming bacon.
Somehow basing the future on fictional works seems like a bad idea to me.
Assuming all conflict hinges solely on material resources is also probably a bad idea XD
EDIT: Just saying. For all we know, those aliens are the IRKEN EMPIRE!
LordofHats wrote: Somehow basing the future on fictional works seems like a bad idea to me.
Satellites were predicted in science fiction before they were invented, as were robots and continuous propulsion ion drives. Science fiction extrapolates from science. Sure, a lot of it can be off, but good science fiction is often eerily close to reality when it comes to predicting future developments.
LordofHats wrote: Somehow basing the future on fictional works seems like a bad idea to me.
Satellites were predicted in science fiction before they were invented, as were robots and continuous propulsion ion drives. Science fiction extrapolates from science. Sure, a lot of it can be off, but good science fiction is often eerily close to reality when it comes to predicting future developments.
Yeah, but science fiction also proposed computers the size of a quanta, dog fights in space, beings made of pure energy, and hot green space women.
I.E. Just because something is presented as being possible in a work of fiction, isn't really a good reason to assume things will be that way. There's a multitude of problems in assuming all food problems will disappear because a nano-bot can magically turn dirt into bacon.
LordofHats wrote: Somehow basing the future on fictional works seems like a bad idea to me.
Satellites were predicted in science fiction before they were invented, as were robots and continuous propulsion ion drives. Science fiction extrapolates from science. Sure, a lot of it can be off, but good science fiction is often eerily close to reality when it comes to predicting future developments.
Yeah, but science fiction also proposed computers the size of a quanta, dog fights in space, beings made of pure energy, and hot green space women.
I.E. Just because something is presented as being possible in a work of fiction, isn't really a good reason to assume things will be that way.
All three of those things may still happen. Albeit the dog fights won't look near as cool as we hope, but space combat is what it is.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah, but science fiction also proposed computers the size of a quanta, dog fights in space, and hot green space women.
I.E. Just because something is presented as being possible in a work of fiction, isn't really a good reason to assume things will be that way.
Quantum computers are certainly on the horizon. I'm pretty sure that when space flight becomes common place, there will be dog fights in space. As for hot space women... that can only be a matter of time
LordofHats wrote: Somehow basing the future on fictional works seems like a bad idea to me.
Gotta love Zim!
Seriously, science-fiction has blazed the trails for science in more than one occasion.
Neal Stephenson does not just pull stuff out of his ass. He does a lot of research and writes his books around what he predicts will happen in the future.
If you have never read one of his books, I highly suggest Cryptonomicon.
Alot of the time Science Fiction mearely comes up with names, the actual science isn't even close to each other, but the developers of the new technology decide to name their new product something cool. Something they've heard before etc...
The only reason Mobile Phones arn't called Communicators is because phones were around before Star Trek, and it just seemed natural to call a phone you can carry around a mobile phone.
Quanta don't have 'size' even before one considers the laws of thermodynamics
Quantum effects really blew away pretty much everything we knew about the sub-nanoscale universe. Whilst I would not put money on it happening in my lifetime, I'm sure that at some point we will have developed technology enough to be looking at whatever is below the quantum level.
Grey Templar wrote: Alot of the time Science Fiction mearely comes up with names, the actual science isn't even close to each other, but the developers of the new technology decide to name their new product something cool. Something they've heard before etc...
The only reason Mobile Phones arn't called Communicators is because phones were around before Star Trek, and it just seemed natural to call a phone you can carry around a mobile phone.
I agree that often its the names that come from Si-Fi, but there are many instances were our developments went the direction predicted in science fiction.
Once we have Quantum computers we may not see a need to make anything smaller. There does come a point where further research down a path really has no tangible gains, so you transfer efforts into another area till you do need more in the previous area.
Once Quantum computers get up and running, I doubt there will be much research down the area of making a more efficient/smaller system for a long time. Diminishing marginal returns and that stuff.
LordofHats wrote: Much like AI, people think quantum computers are something completely different from what they actually are.
Having worked with nanoparticles I have a general understanding of certain quantum level engineering and a passing knowledge of quantum computers. Being keen on robotics and computing, I have a reasonable knowledge of AI. I'm not really sure what you think people understand these things to be, and how that differs from the reality.
SilverMK2 wrote: Having worked with nanoparticles I have a general understanding of certain quantum level engineering and a passing knowledge of quantum computers. Being keen on robotics and computing, I have a reasonable knowledge of AI. I'm not really sure what you think people understand these things to be, and how that differs from the reality.
Well, for one thing, people assume the 'quantum' refers to size or speed. For a living example, look at the post right above yours.
LordofHats wrote: Well, for one thing, people assume the 'quantum' refers to size or speed. For a living example, look at the post right above yours.
Not meaning any offense, but judging by his posts in this and other threads I don't think his scientific knowledge is particularly large.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Once we have Quantum computers we may not see a need to make anything smaller. There does come a point where further research down a path really has no tangible gains, so you transfer efforts into another area till you do need more in the previous area.
SilverMK2 wrote: Not meaning any offense, but judging by his posts in this and other threads I don't think his scientific knowledge is particularly large.
Most people don't have a particularly large scientific knowledge base. Sci-fi writers being members of 'most people' aren't immune to the vast misperception of science, and seeing as we are dealing with highly theoretical fields, making radical assumptions about the future based on a fictional work, really shouldn't be how we predict future events.
LordofHats wrote: Most people don't have a particularly large scientific knowledge base. Sci-fi writers being members of 'most people' aren't immune to the vast misperception of science, and seeing as we are dealing with highly theoretical fields, making radical assumptions about the future based on a fictional work, really shouldn't be how we predict future events.
Maybe we've been reading different science fiction
I'm not denying there is terrible, ill informed gak out there, but as I said, good science fiction can be good a predicting future developments - and as KK said, a lot of SF writers are scientists
Listen, you are a creationist, so we already know you can't be talked out of anything with logic, but trust us, there are plenty of things that can kill a mother if she carries the fetus the full length of pregnancy, so instead of coming on and being necky and typing things like "So abortion MIRACLE CURE!" which nobody said, why don't you just stop commenting on things that you aren't interested in?
Since when am I a creationist? What has that to do with this anyway?
Abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care.
You are either a bare faced liar, or you are staggeringly ignorant.
Which is it? Is it perhaps that I am not ignorant and the truth that I am telling you you disbelieve?
In countries with crappy maternal care they tend to die more, but 1st world countries without abortion mothers are healthier.
Could it be that they are holding a specific moral point that abortion is wrong, no matter who gets one, and not trying to have a double standard
oh no a rational sensible person! RUN!
So to follow up, if I cause an auto accident, and this woman suffers a miscarriage, I am guilty of manslaughter?
In many countries if you attack a pregnant woman resulting the loss of the unborn childs life you will get prosecuted for that as well as for assault/gbh/whatever too
Grey Templar wrote:
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
You know people used to say that about blacks and the disabled?
So we're all animals and therefor have no dignity or any more entitlement to life than a dog or pig. Yet murder is wrong because reasons?
If fact people with 98% of downs syndrome babies in the UK being aborted, yes disabled peoples lifes are not comparible to a 'normal' persons.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templat, do you eat eggs? Did you know some eggs can be fertilized but put in the cold so they dont develop?
Are you murddering baby chickens?
Hah, you strayed into my turf. I know all about chickens.
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
If you think human life and animal life are no different then you wouldn't eat fertilized eggs. And you certaintly wouldn't even consider Abortion or any form of Birth Control that kills the Embryo because with that set of morals both would be considered wrong.
So if you don't eat fertilized eggs because you don't want to kill a baby chicken, then you can't also say Abortion is ok. unless you have a set of morals where human life is below animal life.
Why is an animals life isnt comparable to an animals?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templat, do you eat eggs? Did you know some eggs can be fertilized but put in the cold so they dont develop?
Are you murddering baby chickens?
Hah, you strayed into my turf. I know all about chickens.
An animal's life is not comperable to a human's.
If you think human life and animal life are no different then you wouldn't eat fertilized eggs. And you certaintly wouldn't even consider Abortion or any form of Birth Control that kills the Embryo because with that set of morals both would be considered wrong.
So if you don't eat fertilized eggs because you don't want to kill a baby chicken, then you can't also say Abortion is ok. unless you have a set of morals where human life is below animal life.
Why is an animals life isnt comparable to an animals?
Grey Templar wrote: Contraceptives on the most basic level are not a bad thing.
Some contraceptives, however, do result in the death of the embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterine wall. Thus on a technical level it could be seen as an abortion pill/whatever method its taken as. With the assumption that life begins at conception.
It is fascinating to me that the idea that life begins at fertilisation is such a powerful, absolute belief. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, as the issue of life is far to complicated for me to give any more than my opinion, but as an inherent, absolute biblical belief it's about as old as the Happy Meal.
Fascinating that within a generation you can go from something being a new, and highly debated concept, to being an absolute belief.
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
But if a quarter of the population died because they fell off of scaffolding, you better believe we'd be spending an untold fortune trying to stop that from happening. No matter if someone did it on purpose or not, that many people dying would be an untold tragedy.
And yet that many pregnancies are lost inside the first six weeks, and nothing is done about it. It's almost as if, despite all the rhetoric that it is a human life the same as any other... we don't really believe that, and don't act as if that were true.
Grey Templar wrote: Contraceptives on the most basic level are not a bad thing.
Some contraceptives, however, do result in the death of the embryo by not allowing it to attach to the uterine wall. Thus on a technical level it could be seen as an abortion pill/whatever method its taken as. With the assumption that life begins at conception.
It is fascinating to me that the idea that life begins at fertilisation is such a powerful, absolute belief. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, as the issue of life is far to complicated for me to give any more than my opinion, but as an inherent, absolute biblical belief it's about as old as the Happy Meal.
Fascinating that within a generation you can go from something being a new, and highly debated concept, to being an absolute belief.
1) There is a huge difference between something happening beyond our control and a deliberate action. Its the difference between accidentially knocking someone off some scaffolding and deliberatly pushing them off. One is a horrible accident, the other is murder.
But if a quarter of the population died because they fell off of scaffolding, you better believe we'd be spending an untold fortune trying to stop that from happening. No matter if someone did it on purpose or not, that many people dying would be an untold tragedy.
And yet that many pregnancies are lost inside the first six weeks, and nothing is done about it. It's almost as if, despite all the rhetoric that it is a human life the same as any other... we don't really believe that, and don't act as if that were true.
Can't we all just agree that humans are our own kind, and its only natural that we care a bit more about organisms of our own species than others? It's not like the rest of the animal kingdom is any different. Most species tend to be more discriminating towards others than they are towards their own.
I think it makes sense to say that animals with more intelligence deserve more protection than those with less. This has the added benefit of lining up with how humans presently behave - we afford a rabbit more care than we do a locust, and a dolphin more care than we grant the rabbit... And it's from our actual actions, far more than talk, than we're able to establish what we really believe.
As such, it makes sense to say that humans, being far and above more intelligent than any animal, deserve far more protections. Not absolute protection compared to animals, but far more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But also are one of the only species known to rape and murder besides humans.
Which has always been one of those screwy facts, that just gets repeated over and over again. How exactly do you have rape when you're talking about species with such limited brain function that the idea of informed consent is nonsense.
I mean, aphids are born already pregnant, so it's not like you could claim they gave informed consent.
I'm not a scientist, but there are a range of medications women already take to increase the chances of a healthy pregrnancy. There must be other, better treatments possible that research could discover. And yet we have breast cancer day, prostate cancer day, bowel cancer day, just every type of cancer day, MS day, cerebal palsy day, and all these other fundraising drives
I am, personally, rather shocked that there is so little research into such matters, compared to the 900 pound gorilla that is the anti-abortion movement.
Now, I'm not speaking for you personally, I don't know how much effort you spend on any cause. But I do note an abundance of effort spent on anti-abortion efforts, and a complete absence of efforts to reduce the rate of miscarriage. It's almost as if, despite everything they say, people don't really believe it is a human being the same as any other. Because their actions indicate that isn't what they really believe.
sebster wrote: I think it makes sense to say that animals with more intelligence deserve more protection than those with less. This has the added benefit of lining up with how humans presently behave - we afford a rabbit more care than we do a locust, and a dolphin more care than we grant the rabbit... which likely means it is basically what we really do believe.
Wouldn't it be better base our criteria on which animals have the biggest environmental impact rather than intelligence?
Cheesecat wrote: Wouldn't it be better base our criteria on which animals have the biggest environmental impact rather than intelligence?
If we were rational beings who defined environmental impact as our only concern, then sure it'd be better. But I'm not talking about what's better or worse, just talking about how people actually behave, and using that to deduce what they really believe.
You can see just from the way people react, we have an empathy towards animals that's more than just environmental concern, and that empathy grows the higher that animal's capabilities grow. There are other factors, of course, particularly how cute an animal is, but the base line is intelligence.
I mean, consider a hypothetical - we land on another planet looking to colonise. There on that planet there's already life. Say there's nothing showing any signs of civilisation - you get apex predators with complex tribal arrangements, similar to wolves and chimps here on Earth, but nothing more than that. As we started to set up our colonies, we'd make sure we didn't wipe out the native life, but we certainly wouldn't avoid prime locations out of fear the native six legged wolfbeasts might 'own' it.
Now consider that same planet, but living on it there's a population showing advance civilisation, maybe even advanced to a feudal state. Now, in terms of power they wouldn't compete at all with our awesome space faring tech, but we would deal with them in a totally different way to how we dealt with the six legged wolfbeasts. There'd be an inherent respect for a higher intelligence than we'd show to the six legged wolfbeasts.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But also are one of the only species known to rape and murder besides humans.
Which has always been one of those screwy facts, that just gets repeated over and over again. How exactly do you have rape when you're talking about species with such limited brain function that the idea of informed consent is nonsense.
I mean, aphids are born already pregnant, so it's not like you could claim they gave informed consent.
.
Not like Aphids are a rather intelligent mammal either so the comparison's slightly off. A Marine Biologist explained the whole thing in detail to me but the short run is that dolphins can and do have sex for fun, and that occasionally male dolphins who are less likely to breed will form groups and chase off another pod's males, then beat/force-ably have sex with one or two of the females that they manage to corner. Sure sounds like a rape to me. I find in studying the behaviors of many large mammals consent does exist as a concept in one way or another. It's just not how we're used to getting and receiving consent. A mare for example can and will let a stallion know if she's in the mood or not, similar a lioness to the lion. Monkeys of various flavor do that as well... hell there's a famous example where scientists gave a captive troop of monkeys "money" (tokens, that if given to the researcher would be rewarded with treats) one of the results was the surfacing of the world's oldest human profession in this group of monkeys. Males would trade tokens to the female for sex. They might not be able to do the technological things we do, but I wouldn't underestimate the rest of the class Mammalia when it comes to complex behaviors and emotions.
So we're all animals and therefor have no dignity or any more entitlement to life than a dog or pig. Yet murder is wrong because reasons?
If fact people with 98% of downs syndrome babies in the UK being aborted, yes disabled peoples lifes are not comparible to a 'normal' persons.
In the grand scheme of things no, we are all just animals and have no inherent right to "dignity" or life than any other animal. The difference is that we are demonstratably sentient beings (well, some of us are anyway ) and have put into place certain rules of behaviour to govern our interactions with the world around us.
A collection of cells is not comparable to a human being. The potential may be there, but that is all. Killing that collection of cells, although it can be traumatic to those involved is not comprable to killing a fully functioning human being. I am reasonably happy with the cutoff point for general abortions as it seems to me that the experts involved in looking into this limit have selected an appropriate deliniation as to when a collection of cells is close enough to being a "human being" that killing it could be considered wrong.
If it is discovered that a collection of cells is going to lead to a life which will not be normal I think many people would choose to prevent it. Whilst the person that would result should it go to term would still be a person, the fact that they would not be able to lead a normal life means some people would rather "spare" the potential person from that. While I have not been put in that position, I believe I would choose similarly. Indeed, for myself, should I become unable to lead a sufficiently normal, active and happy life I believe I would book myself into a swiss clinic...
Grey Templar wrote: Let me get this straight, he wants to ignore me because I think humans are better then animals and I don't believe in aliens
Listen, when there is some actual evidence of Aliens I'll believe i'll believe they exist.
Well admittedly, those are two things I just cherry-picked over the last page or so.
I've got this whole thread to look at for other reasons.
It'd be more like, I'd ignore you because I don't feel like I could really engage in conversation about this topic with you, ever. But, there are plenty of other topics to talk about, so I'll hold off. You're no Whembly.
Obviously I like your commentary in other threads. Just not here.
Grey Templar wrote: Listen, when there is some actual evidence of Aliens I'll believe i'll believe they exist.
Life exists on this planet in extremely hostile environments. There are billions of stars in our galaxy and it seems from observations that many of them may have planets. Then there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
The probability that life has only ever evolved on Earth is extremely remote. There are even several interesting prospects for life in our own solar system, let alone another planet in a similar "goldilocks" position around its sun. And there are a billion^billion stars to choose from
SilverMK2 wrote: Life exists on this planet in extremely hostile environments. There are billions of stars in our galaxy and it seems from observations that many of them may have planets. Then there are billions of galaxies in the universe.
The probability that life has only ever evolved on Earth is extremely remote. There are even several interesting prospects for life in our own solar system, let alone another planet in a similar "goldilocks" position around its sun. And there are a billion^billion stars to choose from
I don't think it's that absurd to propose that we may never find any life like ourselves. Off the trillions of species on earth, we're the only ones like us. I have no doubt there's life out there, but that doesn't mean we're gonna have any buddies for any intergalactic wars, and even if they are out there, given the vast distances we might never find them (or they us).
LordofHats wrote: I don't think it's that absurd to propose that we may never find any life like ourselves. Off the trillions of species on earth, we're the only ones like us. I have no doubt there's life out there, but that doesn't mean we're gonna have any buddies for any intergalactic wars, and even if they are out there, given the vast distances we might never find them (or they us).
Well....in some ways your right. The chances of finding something that looks like a human is next to none.
On the other hand, there are many basic concepts that have evolved again and again because of the basic physical utility they provide. Jointed limbs, for example.
Given the number of planets we have found thus far, and the size of the universe, to think that we are the only life out there is more than arrogance. The question is simple -- will we encounter that life anytime soon?
Never is a long time. I certainly don't expect to find any in my lifetime but at the pace of technological progression it would not surprise me if in 3-4 generations we will be sending out ships to the nearest solar systems.
Besides, a single cell is as alien as Spock if it evolved on another planet.
Phototoxin wrote: Abortion is never necessary to save a womans life. Countries without abortion have better maternal care. I don't see the logical reason other than 'I don't want a child' and in most cases 'I don't want to take responsibility for my actions'
Try talking to actual doctors about this one. Ask about what happens to a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and doesn't get treatment.
Even better: America has the worst rate of pregnancy-related deaths among developed nations. And it is getting worse...
So abortion cures all of these things. THE MIRACLE CURE!
Also most etopic pregnancies die and then can be removed.
Where do you get your facts?
The end result of an ectopic pregnancy is that the fallopian tube ruptures and the woman bleeds to death. Sure, then the fetus dies and can be removed... during the woman's AUTOPSY!
The end result of an ectopic pregnancy is that the fallopian tube ruptures and the woman bleeds to death. Sure, then the fetus dies and can be removed... during the woman's AUTOPSY!
Final word from Phototoxin since censorship has prevented him from supplying sources:
Journal showing where restricted abortion results in better maternal care (also re: middle east etc, being 2nd/3rd world countries they are going to have a high rate of maternal mortality which abortion is not going to fix)
Journal showing where restricted abortion results in better maternal care (also re: middle east etc, being 2nd/3rd world countries they are going to have a high rate of maternal mortality which abortion is not going to fix)
First Article-"“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.", they're simply changing the goal posts since an abortion carried out to save the mother is apparently not an abortion
Second Article-"The reduction in the MMR is not related to the legal status of abortion.".....so whether or not abortion is illegal or legal, a developing country will tend to see a drop in maternal mortality rate? really go figure
