• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion

If you learn how to represent your own position, rather than misrepresent mine in order to dispute it, get back to me.

Being condescending doesn't strengthen your position. Evidence and reasonable discussion does. I have been reasonable and, in fact, haven't disputed anything you haven't already agreed upon.

I don't think it's possible to debate with you without it getting personal on your end, for some reason. So, I will be the first and bow out of discussion with you.

Thank you.
 
You are all stupid. A fetus is a person, and abortion is murder. It says so in the Bible. You godless heathen should accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior and repent your abortion supporting ways. It is a scientific fact that abortion is the cause of homosexuality, murder, and poverty. John Edwards has detected psychic powers coming from babies, so it is true that they have souls. If you kill something with a soul, you are a murderer. Mozart and Einstein would have been aborted if their countries had allowed it.

Everyone here is a bunch of stupid airheads who don't know the first thing about this subject. You all immoral and support the Nazis and the Holocaust. Your racism is also obvious.

*This is an example of trolling.*
 
Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.

If that was ad-hominem what was your post saying "blehblebleble bleh"?

What frustrates me here, is that comments like the above seem to me like you hold others to a higher standard. I know you'd be very upset if someone responded like that. This isn't the first time I've seen you, instead of debate things and try to get people to understand your point of you, you turn an important discussion into a snark fest.

What aggravates me here is that this is extremely serious, especially for me and my young women friends. I consider skeptics to be brighter than the average person, and I genuinely want them to understand my position. When you post things like "blewblehebleh" and call people essentially ethically suspicious, they go away and don't want to come back. Can you understand why this is so important? And if so, why I'd hope people wouldn't be so nasty?
 
What frustrates me here, is that comments like the above seem to me like you hold others to a higher standard.
So, how would you respond to someone who's invented 3 dozen different (ok, I'm exagerating, it's not 3 dozen, I think) positions and claimed you held them?

How do you respond to people who demand that you hold a disputed axiom as revealed truth?
I know you'd be very upset if someone responded like that.
Apply for the prize then, you're both predicting the future and suggesting you read minds.
What aggravates me here is that this is extremely serious, especially for me and my young women friends.
Yes, it certainly is a serious discussion, yet somehow extraction from context, straw men, misleading attribution, instance on misleading attribution, and the like are ok for some to do, but somehow it's "snarky" for me to treat those behaviors like the craven avoidance they are?
I consider skeptics to be brighter than the average person, and I genuinely want them to understand my position. When you post things like "blewblehebleh" and call people essentially ethically suspicious, they go away and don't want to come back. Can you understand why this is so important? And if so, why I'd hope people wouldn't be so nasty?

I'm not being nasty. I'm simply disgusted, this is like the Monty Python sketch they never did on burning straw men.
 
So, how would you respond to someone who's invented 3 dozen different (ok, I'm exagerating, it's not 3 dozen, I think) positions and claimed you held them?
If that's how you feel, I can't suggest how you to respond.

*Because I'd suggest not responding at all.*
 
but I think calling the fetus part you is pushing it a little.
the fetus is part dad by 50% and part mom 50%

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference.
If you read what the supreme court defines as lawful or permitable abortion, you will see that they allow it if continuance of pregnancy will physically OR psychologically/emotionally hurt the woman. The abortion of a child can emotionally hurt a man, big time- because to a father that wants to see that child born, wants to protect that child (even in the mother) when he experiences an abortion, its similar to losing a born child at any age.
 
the fetus is part dad by 50% and part mom 50%
That's really not literally true, is it? 50% of the genetic makeup of the fetus is contributed by the father, but the actual raw materials that go into constructing it come almost 100% from the mother, aside from the single sperm cell that initially fertilizes the egg.

If you read what the supreme court defines as lawful or permitable abortion, you will see that they allow it if continuance of pregnancy will physically OR psychologically/emotionally hurt the woman.
I believe that current law permits abortion for any reason up to the point of fetal viability; beyond that, abortion must (I think; I haven't read Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a while) be permitted where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life of physical health; I'm not sure there's an exception for psychological health past the point of viability.

The abortion of a child can emotionally hurt a man, big time- because to a father that wants to see that child born, wants to protect that child (even in the mother) when he experiences an abortion, its similar to losing a born child at any age.
Sure, but is there really a direct comparison between an emotional injury to the father and a serious physical injury (or death) to the mother? Not to say that emotional injuries are not serious or legitimate, but it doesn't seem to rise to quite the same level of risk as that faced by the pregnant woman. I think Abbyas is right that there is a qualitative distinction here.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, yeah, what was that you said later, um "ad hominem"? Besides, oh, wait while I take my mid-morning nap here, ok?

zzzzzzz

Not clear, pointing out your rhetorical misadventures is not ad-hominem. I am attacking your message, just not the way you want me to attack it.

An example of ad-hominem would be along the order of

YOU EAT FISH THEREFORE YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG... N.B. yes, that's a preposterous example, and offered only for example.


Well, one might then question the issue of "good faith", eh?
wow..........................you just didn't have anything productive to say AT ALL this time did you. My ad hominum was only refering to me teasing you, although playful. That's all. Listin grandpa, we've obviously gotten off track and niether of us are improving the situation. So anyway, it is fact that because you (at your age) came from a 20 year old, that 20 year old was a potential you. Because that 20 year old came from an 11 year old boy, that 11 year old boy was a potential twenty year old you. Because that 11 year old boy came from a 4 year old toddler, that 4 year old toddler was a potential 11 year old boy. Because that 4 year old toddler came from a new born baby, that new born baby was a potential 4 year old toddler. Because that new born baby came from a fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy, that third trimester fetus was a potential new born baby. Because that third trimester fetus came from a fetus began at the moment of conception, that fetus that began at the moment of conception was a potential sisty-something year old YOU and therefore just as human, with the potential to be just as grumpy, and therefore, just as precious. And if your mom wanted to abort you and your dad didn't, then I think your dad would be pretty sad and feel pretty powerless. If you disagree with that, if all this is too anti-stoic of me, then obviously (of course its been obviouse all this time) we're simply waiting our times talking, or bickering about it, JJ. I don't believe you can see the value in a fetus that I do, and that's cool- I don't think you cruel or anything. And if you're taken aback by my emotional drive, its not a crime, a sin, or even anti human to emote so I guess thats all I have to say right now about that.
 
That's a very nice, clear statement, and one that I think summarizes one of the most basic points involved. It's the woman who has necessarily to place life and limb at risk.
You still can't see it. Its right there in your statement. I'm risking my unborn child's life and limb.
 
You still can't see it. Its right there in your statement. I'm risking my unborn child's life and limb.


You're right, since I don't accept your position a-priori, I don't "see" what I don't agree with.

We're not going to agree on this, I suspect.
 
Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.
I might have to back track to cut and past your post, but I'm pretty sure you agreed that abortion was terminating a life. And I think we all agreed that a human isn't protected, only a "person born", in the US.
 
Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.
Actually, it looks to me like JJ is more concerned with coining specific fallacies than actually getting down to brass taxes, which I might add is a fallacy in itself ;)
 
Actually, it looks to me like JJ is more concerned with coining specific fallacies than actually getting down to brass taxes, which I might add is a fallacy in itself ;)


No, I just won't bother with replying to fallacious replies. It's not ultimately worth the time.
 
You are all stupid. A fetus is a person, and abortion is murder. It says so in the Bible. You godless heathen should accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior and repent your abortion supporting ways. It is a scientific fact that abortion is the cause of homosexuality, murder, and poverty. John Edwards has detected psychic powers coming from babies, so it is true that they have souls. If you kill something with a soul, you are a murderer. Mozart and Einstein would have been aborted if their countries had allowed it.

Everyone here is a bunch of stupid airheads who don't know the first thing about this subject. You all immoral and support the Nazis and the Holocaust. Your racism is also obvious.

*This is an example of trolling.*
DAMMIT I thought I was the only one on here with a sense of humor!
 
That's really not literally true, is it? 50% of the genetic makeup of the fetus is contributed by the father, but the actual raw materials that go into constructing it come almost 100% from the mother, aside from the single sperm cell that initially fertilizes the egg.


I believe that current law permits abortion for any reason up to the point of fetal viability; beyond that, abortion must (I think; I haven't read Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a while) be permitted where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life of physical health; I'm not sure there's an exception for psychological health past the point of viability.


Sure, but is there really a direct comparison between an emotional injury to the father and a serious physical injury (or death) to the mother? Not to say that emotional injuries are not serious or legitimate, but it doesn't seem to rise to quite the same level of risk as that faced by the pregnant woman. I think Abbyas is right that there is a qualitative distinction here.
That's what I meant- 50% dna.
Man, I thought I'd sneak by with my mouth while you were too buisy with JJ ;) But yes psychological health as well......well, yeah, past the point of viability....so in the third trimester? I'm not sure. I've pulled directly from the cases in prior threads, I'll go back into my handy little book here- but don't take my word for it.
 
No, I just won't bother with replying to fallacious replies. It's not ultimately worth the time.
Whoa, hold on a sec. It just a hunch, but I detect you're lightening up a bit, jj, ol pal
 
Whether we consider a fetus a human life or not only matters if we are in a society that considers human life sacrosanct. It is my contention that we, as a society, do not.

We live in a society that sends its young men and women into war, knowing full well that many will be killed, tortured or maimed.

We live in a society that feels that the death penalty is acceptable.

We live in a society that's most popular movies, books, and entertainment includes stories about people killing other people. We consider it a "happy ending" and cheer when the good guy kills the bad guy.

Our laws and statutes consider it acceptable to kill someone if they threaten your life or property.

So we do not consider all human life to be sacrosanct. We consider murder to be an acceptable action under certain circumstances.

And its not just a matter of innocent vs guilty.

In order to end world war II, our society dropped nuclear bombs which killed over 120,000 innocent civilians immediately and twice that number over time.

In all wars we know that innocent people have been killed, and while tragic, most consider it an acceptable consequence of war. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country , more civilians were killed (30 million) than soldiers (20 million) during World War II.

Our own troops now in Iraq have orders when travelling in convoy that if any person steps in front of the trucks, even if they are children, to run them over. Do not stop the convoy.

And, its by not only our actions, but our lack of action that even more people die each year.

According to http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm :

15 million children die of hunger EVERY YEAR.

Every 3.6 seconds, someone dies of hunger.

It would cost our society 13 billion dollars to satisfy all the worlds sanitation and food requirements. Which is approximately the same amount of money people in the US and European union spend each year on perfume. Which is approximately the same amount of money Americans spend on porn. Which is about 1 tenth of what Americans spend on videos and movie entertainment. Which is about 1 third of what Americans spend on our pets...

Our society does not value all human life. As a matter of fact, it pretty clearly values some lives more than others. We kill people to protect ourselves. We kill people to protect our property. We kill people to protect our "way of life". We kill people by ignoring their suffering.

Respect for human life is NOT the name of this game.

Meg
 
I'd also like to talk about the real reasons that women get abortions now.

From: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

74% said that having a baby would dramatically interfere with her work, education, or ability to care for her other dependents

73% said she could not afford a baby right now

48% said that she did not want to be a single mother, or was having relationship problems

Nearly 40% said she was finished having children

Nearly 33% said she was not ready to have a child.

13% cited problems affecting the health of the fetus.

12% cited problems affecting their own health.

Most women (89%) cited two or more reasons. 72% cited three or more.

Let's look at some more info.

The majority (59%) of women getting abortions already has one or more children.

The majority (60%) of women getting abortions had a family income of less that twice the federal poverty level. Which includes the 30% who were living UNDER the poverty level

Here is a link showing just what those numbers mean. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

So here are the questions I have to those wanting to ban abortion.

If you really really really want to stop abortion, what are you doing to help these families get what they need in order to have these children?

What are the social programs that you support that are going to help with the costs of raising the child? What are the social programs that you support that are going to help a woman continue her education while pregnant or a mother? What are the social programs that you support that are going to help a woman continue working, or will help her to not be worried about losing her job because of her pregnancy? What are the social programs that you support that encourage couples to stick together, and that help them work through their relationship problems? What are the social programs that you support to help these women (and their partners) earn a family supporting wage?

10% of all ALL US families (7.6 million) were under the poverty level in 2003. The corresponding numbers for unrelated individuals in poverty in 2003 were 20.4% and 9.7 million.
(from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html )

What are the social programs that you support to get these families and individuals out of poverty? Considering 60% of all abortions are by people we consider "poor", don't you think there's a connection? I sure do.

Yet, our government, with our president declaring our "culture of life" passed this in the latest budget:

MEDICAID: cuts $4.8 billion
MEDICARE: cuts $6.4 billion
WELFARE AND CHILD SUPPORT: Cut $1.6 billion from welfare, child-support enforcement and other human services.
EDUCATION: Cuts $12.7 billion from education

(from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122100748.html )

Here's another thing to think about:

37-54% of the women getting abortions either did not use contraception, or the method failed (depending on which year surveyed). Before we start making alot of judgements about them, let's also consider this, also from the guttmacher institute:

from http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/02/22/index.html
"In 2002, 16.8 million women are estimated to have needed publicly supported contraceptive care, yet clinics were able to serve just 4 in 10, or 6.7 million women. As funding for programs dedicated to family planning--such as Title X of the Public Health Service Act--has decreased or leveled off, the burden of meeting women’s health care needs has shifted to Medicaid. Medicaid funding for contraceptive services has tripled since 1980, and the program now accounts for almost two-thirds of all federal and state family planning funding nationwide.

The budget President Bush presented to Congress in early February [2005] would drastically cut Medicaid as a whole, and the Administration is hoping to change the program’s rules to allow states to reduce benefits for some enrollees--possibly including eliminating the guarantee that family planning services are provided at no cost. Yet The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that every $1 spent on contraceptive services saves $3 for pregnancy-related and newborn care alone, and a government analysis shows that states that got federal approval to expand Medicaid coverage for family planning saved money while serving more women."

To recap:

Close to half of the women in abortion clinics are there because of lack of contraception, or that contraception failed.

The vast majority of women who choose abortion do so because of poverty and lack of support for them to raise the child, - financially, emotionally, and/or physically.

If you want to drastically cut the amount of abortions performed each year, fix the above two problems.

--------

Ok. I guess I'm done for now. Feel free to go back to arguing over the genetic makeup of fetuses now.

Meg
 

Back
Top Bottom