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.

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving. Or perhaps they are filled with the Christian spirit of charity towards all their fellow men and will happily take these extra children into their own homes and raise them off the state dollar?

Perhaps also forcing employers to pay for insurance which covers contraception so that people are less likely to have all these unwanted children in the first place?

Increase wages so people feel they can afford to raise children?

Maybe also allow some meaningful sexual education in schools?

Maybe free contraceptives and contraceptive advice available in all schools and doctors surgeries?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.

There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.

There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.

The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it puts the state in control of a very complicated decision with huge health, financial, and well-being implications that is best left in the hands of the individual or individuals who that decision affects most. I thought conservatives were all for keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible, then we hit this issue, and they suddenly want total control. If you don't like abortion, noone is forcing you or your loved ones to have one, so why not just decide to never have one according to your conscience, and leave that complicated decision for others to make on their own.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

Here's the hard part - why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Oh beaten to the punch! Insaniak is truly an internet ninja

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Oh beaten to the punch! Insaniak is truly an internet ninja

The standard argument is that the unborn child's life as an autonomous being is only 'potential', while the mother's is 'actual'.

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

The right to bodily autonomy. If you are relying on a blood transfusion from me, and doing so could result in my death and I don't want to do it, then it doesn't happen. You have no rights over my body. The same is true with pregnancy; the foetus has no rights over the mother's body, and so if the mother does not wish to provide help at the risk of her own health (continuing a nonviable pregnancy) then she has the right to end it.

The foetus has no rights over the mother's body, therefore the mother is more important than the child.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Oh beaten to the punch! Insaniak is truly an internet ninja

The standard argument is that the unborn child's life as an autonomous being is only 'potential', while the mother's is 'actual'.

One should also use the old English Common Law argument:
-One person is not required to give their life to save another. One can assume both are lives, and both lives are equally "valid." But there is no common law or statutory law that will withstand Constitutional Scrutiny that requires the above.

other countries' traditions may vary.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

You're assuming that, because the mother is already a functioning member of society, that she will continue to be one afterwards. This is unlikely. The trauma of not only being near death, but also having the baby you carried inside you for months sacrificed, would not simply bounce off a person, never mind any physical issues that may arise from complications. At the very least, the mother would likely require counselling and potentially medication to offset the mental anguish, and potentially medication to alleviate physical symptoms and aid in the healing process. The partner might also be mentally pained. Their relationship is far more likely to fail from this point on that it is to stay the same, never mind prosper, and it could be that the very thought of trying for another child would be too much--for either/both of them. Any pre-existing children in the relationship might also require some sort of help, or will at the very least experience the fallout.

There are so many variables to consider here that claiming "anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves" is just hand-waving opposing arguments and shooting people down before anyone has even started trying to counter your point. It also suggests that you seek only to state your own opinion not only as fact, but also without fear of having to argue your point. Why exactly do you want to avoid discussion? You clearly feel very strongly about it, but your insistence that everyone who opposes your view is wrong, even before anything has been said against it, makes me wonder if the strength behind it is based on personal opinion as opposed to facts and evidence. The possibility that you'll be unable to actually argue your point if a discussion is started is the only reason I can think of that you'd make such a blanket statement decrying opposition before an opposition has been formed.

The biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it puts the state in control of a very complicated decision with huge health, financial, and well-being implications that is best left in the hands of the individual or individuals who that decision affects most. I thought conservatives were all for keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible, then we hit this issue, and they suddenly want total control. If you don't like abortion, noone is forcing you or your loved ones to have one, so why not just decide to never have one according to your conscience, and leave that complicated decision for others to make on their own.

I feel I should mention that I'm only taking issue with Co'tor's blanket 'if you disagree with me then you're wrong' statement. I'm not stating my personal opinions on the matter, nor trying to argue for one side or the other, but simply trying to promote a discussion that has a chance to go beyond "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" etc. etc. ad infinitum. Stating that someone who disagrees with an opinion is "kidding themselves" is a far cry from proving that they're wrong through discussion, and by providing points that can be countered there is a chance--however slim--that a reasonable discussion can be fostered. Unless otherwise stated, any points I bring up do not mirror my own personal views.

@Frazzled: I didn't say both aren't valid lives. The argument is that while a child is in utero, that child is decidedly not autonomous (its 100% dependent on the mother for everything), while the mothers life is autonomous.

And as such, philosophically at least, one could claim that the child isn't an actual life yet, but is instead part of the mother's body.

Questions conservatives can't answer:

In the French ass restaurant, where the hell is my damn croissant?

Why does it hurt when I pee?

How many licks does it take?

What happened to my peanut butter sandwich that one time at summer camp?

How did Bruce Wayne get from an unknown Middle Eastern country's prison all the way back to Gotham without being noticed?

Does this outfit make my butt look big?

How would you rule the Crossbow Expert feat?

A train leaves Rome at 4:54 am, averaging 88 mph. Another train headed in the same direction leaves Rome at 5:45 am, averaging 108 mph.
To the nearest minute, at what time will the second train overtake the first train?

Does Bo know?

Why ask why?

Are we men?

What is the Matrix?

What is man?

What is love?

In the French ass restaurant, where the hell is my damn croissant?
***Steenking American! No croissants for you!

Why does it hurt when I pee?
***Clearly you didn’t watch the training film did you private?

How many licks does it take?
***One…Two…THREE!!! It take three licks.

What happened to my peanut butter sandwich that one time at summer camp?
***Well, now you know why it hurts when you pee.

How did Bruce Wayne get from an unknown Middle Eastern country's prison all the way back to Gotham without being noticed?
***Virgin Airlines.

Does this outfit make my butt look big?
***No. Your butt makes your butt look big.

How would you rule the Crossbow Expert feat?
***Crossbows are for European wussies. Americans use blow darts and secretions of colorful frogs.

A train leaves Rome at 4:54 am, averaging 88 mph. Another train headed in the same direction leaves Rome at 5:45 am, averaging 108 mph.
To the nearest minute, at what time will the second train overtake the first train?
***That depends. Does my Vought Corsair have rockets?

Does Bo know?
***Bo Knows Ritalin!

Why ask why?
***Bud Dry?

Are we men?
***We are manly Menz who do manly Thingz

What is the Matrix?
***It’s a cross I must bear.

What is man?
***long pig if cooked right.

What is love?
***When it doesn’t hurt when you pee.

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Don't women have the right to defend themselves?

If a 12 yo kid pulls a gun on a woman, can't she shoot him in self defense?

so if a unborn baby is trying to kill her, doesn't she still have the right to self defense?

Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

Perhaps "of course it would have to happen" is bad wording on my part. In my defense, I blame 2am waking up to take care of the dog.
What I meant is at the point of serious risk to the mother, she should get the choice. In cases where it looks like one or both are going to die, for instance.

 Ahtman wrote:

What is love?

Haddaway has you covered on that one:




Also, that's only 14 questions. There should be another 6.

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

An unborn child is merely a blank slate, the mother already formed in society. It may seem unfeeling, and in a sense it is, but it is logical. You can always make another baby. And take this into consideration, are you truly willing to go up to a pregnant women and tell her that she must have the baby and die in the process? I doubt it, and that is true with most people, but people are willing to do this with legislation.

Keep in mind, most abortions do not actually stop children from happening, they merely postpone them. And in cases where continued pregnancy will kill the mother will probably result in the child's death in any case.

Also, this life-or-death decision is on for the mother to make, I'm not going to force anyone to have an abortion, that's just wrong. This is a very emotional choice, ad is choosing to kill your unborn child. The effects can be devastating to the mother. If they want to sacrifice themselves for the child, I am fine with that, but I find it despicable that people will not give them that choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Life-or-death situations. The mother is more important than the child..

Why?

Don't women have the right to defend themselves?

If a 12 yo kid pulls a gun on a woman, can't she shoot him in self defense?

so if a unborn baby is trying to kill her, doesn't she still have the right to self defense?

Why do you think a woman should die for a pregnancy that will not produce a living being?

I know this is a really serious topic, but I can't help but think of stand your ground law jokes.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Well, hopefully anti-abortion people are all happy with increasing taxes to pay for more child support, foster homes and educational facilities to cater for all these extra groups-of-cells-that-may-eventually-become-children they are saving.

I exalted this, because you managed to nail in one sentence just how short sighted people can be when it comes to social issues. They oppose abortion, but don't want to pay for welfare and education, tell lies about contraception, and stigmatize unmarried mothers as 'sinners'. They want to clamp down on crime, but don't want to deal with the root causes such as poverty, or pay for prisons. They oppose a minimum wage, and then call people 'lazy' when they can't make ends meet. They want everyone to be 'free' to carry arms, but then act dismayed when police are cowering behind their cars gunning down 12 year olds because they're scared 'witless' of everyone.

I'm 'quite' liberal and I'm certainly not fine with abortion. I think it is tragic, and perhaps even wasteful and sometimes selfish. But I also respect that it might be the lesser of two evils. I personally think far too much time and energy is wasted discussing abortion when the focus should really be on unplanned pregnancy and how it can be avoided. Things are not always black and white; problems cascade through society compounding other problems.

Pretty much every question on the front page displays a disappointing lack of insight into both the issues, and the arguments for and against them. That's the problem with trying to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with these people. Before that can even take palce they need to be educated beyond what they heard of Fox news, and willing to understand that conclusions should be twisted to fit the evidence for the sake of truth, not the other way around for the sake of vanity.

The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.

nomotog wrote:
The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.

To be fair, I think most pro-lifers are only against those forms of birth control that they perceive as abortifacients. However, I know that on the extreme end of the spectrum, there are also people who believe that sex that is not totally open to the possibility of conception is immoral.

Hell, Jesus even said the best route to take for a man is to make himself a eunuch!

And this is why church and state should not mix

See this thing doesn't work since I have things I am liberal about and things I am conservative about.
Life is not black and white, at least mine isn't.
The one about "God's definition of marriage" made me cringe (I mean how many times in the bible did God let polygamy or even demand it?)
I don't think a country has any rights to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry.
I'm not a stupid child, if I want to marry 5 men and 5 women then I should be able to. Obviously the legal tax stuff and the like would be different, but at the end of the day it's things like that I care a lot about.

But this is American stuff and I believe the US is...well weird...

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

The one about "God's definition of marriage" made me cringe (I mean how many times in the bible did God let polygamy or even demand it?)

My reaction was, which God, and show me the evidence that (a) this God is real, (b) this God has ever communicated to anyone regarding marriage, and then tell me why I should take what this God has to say seriously.

We as a society determine through law and other institutions what marriage is, between who it is allowed, and so forth. Religious arguments are fine for the religious, but they don't hold any water at all for the non-religious.

 jasper76 wrote:

nomotog wrote:
The birth control thing is funny in like a said way. Good cheap access to birth control would be a good way to stop unplanned pregnancy and abortion, but you have of pro lifers are anti birth control directly or indirectly.

To be fair, I think most pro-lifers are only against those forms of birth control that they perceive as abortifacients. However, I know that on the extreme end of the spectrum, there are also people who believe that sex that is not totally open to the possibility of conception is immoral.

Hell, Jesus even said the best route to take for a man is to make himself a eunuch!

The shame is that they make some of the best options. IUDS and such. (I have seen many arguments about how exactly they work and if they really can be thought of as abortifactents.) Ya and then you have the people who just hate all forms of birth control because... they do I guess. Another thing is that there isn't really a firm defining line. A place like planed parent would be attacked by anti abortion people (in the law and I guess physical attacked) and they are a real big provider of contraceptives.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And this is why church and state should not mix

on the flip side your major lefty groups appear just fine with 3rd trimester abortion, which really is killing a baby that can survive.

The list in the OP is something I would have shared when I was a 19 year old registered Republican. Life was simple when it was so black and white.

Then I got more liberal politically as I grew more conservative in my personal life. IMO we could "save" so many more unborn children if we took all the money spend by special interest interest groups pushing for anti-abortion laws and all the money wasted by the states defending the same unconstitutional laws in court year after year and spend it on the resources that would help people make the choice to choose life.

Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean that I can't push for policies that encourage one choice over another.

Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.
You're at what, 36/50?

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And this is why church and state should not mix

on the flip side your major lefty groups appear just fine with 3rd trimester abortion, which really is killing a baby that can survive.

They are not my major lefty groups

The vast majority of the medical establishment is happy that the abortion limits (in the UK at least) have been set appropriately. While I am not a reproductive scientist, I would agree (from what scientific and medical material I have read) that the limits are the best that can be arrived at, both for the mother and potential offspring.

Small pressure groups exist on the extremes of every argument. What one does not want is people with imaginary friends telling them what is and isn't "right", and setting the law accordingly

[PURGATUS]

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Exactly, the concept of sin is meaningless to me since I am not religious.
Why then do churches get to decide what is good and bad for non members.
It's like Mormons suddenly getting to decide you can't drink coffee or alcohol.
But in the US your religious folk want it for everyone, and on the same sex marriage front seem to be loosing.

This is why its important to remain vigilant of religious intrusion on the law and social institutions...there is an impulse common in the religious sphere, especially amongst those that believe they are in receipt of a divine text or of divine instructions, to impose that religion on everyone else.