Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

Guitardian wrote:Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

Heroin is in high demand not only because the government cracks down on suppliers, but also because it's an addictive substance with few substitutes. It's also physically harmful to those addicted to it - which would fall under my "dangerous to themselves or others" label.

I agree. Mostly they are a danger to themselves when actually using. Others when they run out. I am not an advocate of heroin any more than I am an advocate of irresponsible and/or unprepared parents, who are also a danger to themselves and others (the kid? society in general?). We can say about the junkie "well it's her own stupid fault she gets that way, selves her right if getting better isn't pleasant". Why not the same about the potential teen moms and their "babydaddy"s?... just from my point of vew, if there is to be regulation AT ALL (which believe there shouldn't be) why not make it the opposite, equally invasive to the rights of the woman in question - and make them mandatory unless she can show how she can be a fit and responsible parent? Its just as extreme, just in the opposite direction, but at least a heck of a lot better for the rest of society.

Guitardian wrote:Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

I have known people high on crack. They were crazy dangerous ers.

And coffee is not robitussin either.

Alcohol is more dangerous than heroin.

The reasoning behind this analogy you posted is as flawless as a glass foundation which has been shattered into dust.

And then was gakked on and had sections of it removed and dumped into a landfill.

And then was hit by an earthquake with the house just above the epicenter.

That's very colourful but doesn't exactly explain why my analogy is flawed. Keeping in mind that its supposed to be flawed since it itself is a parallel of a false analogy (access to abortion = less women endangered)

Guitardian wrote:I agree. Mostly they are a danger to themselves when actually using. Others when they run out. I am not an advocate of heroin any more than I am an advocate of irresponsible and/or unprepared parents, who are also a danger to themselves and others (the kid? society in general?). We can say about the junkie "well it's her own stupid fault she gets that way, selves her right if getting better isn't pleasant". Why not the same about the potential teen moms and their "babydaddy"s?... just from my point of vew, if there is to be regulation AT ALL (which believe there shouldn't be) why not make it the opposite, equally invasive to the rights of the woman in question - and make them mandatory unless she can show how she can be a fit and responsible parent? Its just as extreme, just in the opposite direction, but at least a heck of a lot better for the rest of society.

I've often heard, from my parents and from other parents, that no one is truly prepared to have a child. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that a person who deeply questions their ability as a potential parent might make them better caregivers in the future, as they put the health and happiness of the baby before their own.

Besides, even if such potential abortion-getters won't make better parents, having screwup parents doesn't guarantee the next generation to be less capable than the last. My own parents came from deeply flawed households where their parents were ill-equipped to have children, yet the example that my grandparents provided has given my family a gauge against which we can measure ourselves. I'm certainly not representative of an entire generation, but having bad examples helped make my parents' marriage work. I've read of other "rags to riches" stories where incredibly talented and influential people have come from poor backgrounds. If it's possible that a child will grow up to be great, is it really wise to deny them a future simply because it's also likely that they'll grow up to be poorly educated trash?

biccat wrote:
If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

The thing is that it isn't a useful parallel since the crux of the debate is whether or not abortion can be justified, meaning that comparing to it murder does nothing except presume that abortion is an unlawful (or, more broadly, unjustified) killing.

In an honest conversation it makes more sense to discuss what we consider to be justifiable reasons for taking a life (if we've already agreed that abortion is taking a life) than it does to begin at murder. Of course it doesn't help much, as this is the sort of issue where people are likely to either be irrational, or arguing from fundamental principles; meaning no one is likely to be convinced one way or the other. Its interesting topic only because some people can come up with truly creative arguments.

Phototoxin wrote:(access to abortion = less women endangered)

This is not a false statement.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her life, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

In the situation where the doctor has to choose between a half-developed fetus and the mother and is forced to abort the fetus, noone wins. If the action he performed is made is illegal, everyone loses by an even larger margin-- if he doesn't do it, both fetus and mother will die, but if he does, he's held legally responsible for the fetus' death.

This is part of the problem. Most people who want to ban abortion don't care for the reason that the abortion happens to begin with. Abortion is never a casual thing... it's a deeply emotional, and often traumatizing thing for the women who go through it. Nobody WANTS to go through the ordeal... but we live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect people. Mistakes are made, and sometimes we have to make decisions we don't like, and we never want to make.

Wen talking about abortion, one could look towards Ireland and see ow tings worked out ere.

Sorry - my keyboard seems o ae ied...

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

The thing is that it isn't a useful parallel since the crux of the debate is whether or not abortion can be justified, meaning that comparing to it murder does nothing except presume that abortion is an unlawful (or, more broadly, unjustified) killing.

You're making the same presumption against murder, that it is unlawful, and therefore not subject to debate. Besides, the example was used in the context of applying labels.

The pro-choice side sees the issue as protecting a mother's right to choose. Anyone opposed to this is anti-choice.

The pro-life side sees the issue as protecting the life of an unborn child. Anyone opposed to this is anti-life.

Melissia wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:(access to abortion = less women endangered)

This is not a false statement.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her health, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

Catholic hospitals have a great way of dealing with this issue: when they treat a pregnant woman, they consider that they are treating two patients.

Now, I disagree with the Catholic idea that abortion should never be on the table - if the choice is to save A and kill B or let both A & B die, then they should try to save at least one of the patients. Then again, if you have two patients who are going to die (e.g., A needs a heart, B is going to die soon, but has a healthy heart), does it make sense to take one of their lives to save the other? Tough call.

Phototoxin wrote:
Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Nothing can prevent a self-induced miscarriage either, that is just a lot less safe yet an equally guaraunteed alternative than a medical procedure. Why the unnecessary risk or legality - the only purpose left it serves that can stand against all the refutes is one of personal belief. It makes believers feel like a more wholesome society, for what good it'll do. I didn't think those personal belief things were supposed to be legislated.

biccat wrote:
You're making the same presumption against murder, that it is unlawful, and therefore not subject to debate.

Murder is unlawful, or unjustified by definition. We don't say that soldiers murder each other in combat, for example.

biccat wrote:
Besides, the example was used in the context of applying labels.

The pro-choice side sees the issue as protecting a mother's right to choose. Anyone opposed to this is anti-choice.

The pro-life side sees the issue as protecting the life of an unborn child. Anyone opposed to this is anti-life.

Sure, and contextually both labels make sense. Though, as I said, I think the label from choice is more appropriate as one can be "anti-life" and still really dislike abortions. You're right though, the nomenclature is all part of the political game, just as political liberals (in the traditional sense) believe in personal freedom insofar as people are prevented from taking steps to limit that freedom.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I would also hazard to guess that in many cases it isn't all that difficult for the woman to choose if she will have an abortion. I know that, of the 3 I've "witnessed", only 1 girl legitimately thought about keeping the child: the other two were merely scared of the procedure.

I think that most pro-life people make an exception if the life of the mother is jeopardized by a pregnancy. If your own life is jeopardized by another and you haven't committed a crime, then you always have the right to do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Consider for a moment that abortion is just plain illegal for any reason other than the rape/incest/life jeopardized stuff. You just can't have an abortion, period, because it's wrong.

My what a lot of happy well raised kids there would be since their moms obviously really wanted to be moms.

What a lot of career-pursuing women there would be since they were able to go ahead with that college scholarship while being a full time mom, since they get free A's in school as part of their new benefits package for being a single mother (it went hand in hand with the food stamps, scholarship, child-care stipend, rent rebates, and all the other good stuff single moms get as part of the Abortion-is-illegal bill. Hell, why not tack on an easy grading scale too?)

My what a lot of new jobs for prison guards in a few years.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Casually indicating that the decision is trivial does not make your position sound intelligently thought out.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Casually indicating that the decision is trivial does not make your position sound intelligently thought out.

The decision to terminate a human life should never be less than a life-or-death situation for someone else. To suggest otherwise is to depreciate the value of human life to whatever decision is being made.

If abortions can be decided on the result of convenience, then human life has no more value than that convenience. Such a view is deplorable, and a civil society should not tolerate such wanton killing.

Meh, I'm not gonna get into this argument. It's bad enough that I have to deal with the local nutjobs, then there's also too much political arguing in off topic recently...

I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

Guitardian wrote:I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time. The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

Hawkward wrote:

Guitardian wrote:I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time. The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

Wait, a sperm is not human life beasue it can only become a human life if it is left alone? I hope that was a typo.

A fertilized egg, without external interference? Like the 9 months of being nurtured by the host body kind of interference? Like the years of attention it needs to mature beyond a point of screaming/soiling itself for defense mechanisms kind of interference?

dogma wrote:Sure, and contextually both labels make sense. Though, as I said, I think the label from choice is more appropriate as

When you try to slap a label on the other side that frames the debate in your terms and which they consider inappropriate, the label is simply inappropriate if you want to hold an actual discussion about an issue and not the label. This is doubly true if you admit that both labels you could choose from sound reasonable to you, since you could just choose the one that doesn't get the other side to object, since you don't have the argument that their preferred label is actually wrong. If you want to feel superior by saying 'haha, they're anti-choice', go for it. If you want to hold an actual discussion or change anyone's mind, though, you should use a label that isn't going to obscure the rest of what you're saying.

Or, as he already pointed out, let each side label itself (Pro-choice, Pro-life) and have the courtesy to use the term for each side that it has collectively chosen.

pro regulation, anti regulation, embryo rights activism, anti foolspawn, load it however you want. Call the other side "idiot" or "murderer" or "government control freak" as you please, the semantics simply don't matter.

The question of regulation and the real reasons behind it becoming a legal matter, and effects of it being a legal matter are an issue though.

Abortions as illegal, for whatever reason (fear? unpreparedness? birth defect? brown eyed? female? bi-racial?) It does not stop unwanted children from happening to foolish people. It cannot even stop terminated pregnancies, just make them more dangerous physically and criminally.

The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)