views on abortion and euthanasia

You need to face the implications of your view.

I do not care about the 'grand sum of effects'.

Why? Because I have no interest in killing one for the benefit and convenience of another.

real life wrote:

You need to face the implications of your view.

That the government should not be making the choice for women?

I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion.

real life wrote:

I do not care about the 'grand sum of effects'.

Which is why your worldview is not acceptable in terms of creating law. Which of us doesn't face the implications of our view? You sir.

real life wrote:

Why? Because I have no interest in killing one for the benefit and convenience of another.

Your politics tell a different story, but that's for another thread. You enjoy using the word "conveinience" as if the decision to abort the unborn is on par with the having to make an extra stop to the drug store on the way home from work. The world (and yes even the USA) faces economic challenges that make your use of the word criminally ignorant.

T
K
O

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

You need to face the implications of your view.

That the government should not be making the choice for women?

I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion.

real life wrote:

I do not care about the 'grand sum of effects'.

Which is why your worldview is not acceptable in terms of creating law. Which of us doesn't face the implications of our view? You sir.

real life wrote:

Why? Because I have no interest in killing one for the benefit and convenience of another.

Your politics tell a different story, but that's for another thread. You enjoy using the word "conveinience" as if the decision to abort the unborn is on par with the having to make an extra stop to the drug store on the way home from work. The world (and yes even the USA) faces economic challenges that make your use of the word criminally ignorant.

T
K
O

You like to make criminals out of those who disagree with you , don't you?

Did you acquire this totalitarian mindset while in college, or before?

Most abortions are done for convenience. Stats from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute confirm this.

Quote:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half

from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

None of these are sufficient reasons to kill a child, TKO.

Deal with the implications of your view, and your inability to defend it rationally.

You like to pontificate about 'the grand sum of effects' without defining it.

I'll define it. You believe it's ok to kill one for the convenience and benefit of another.

Prove that it's not so.

Your arguments about 'societal benefit' and 'lack of negative societal impact of abortion' show that this is EXACTLY what you mean by it.

Former Leading Abortion Advocate Remembers Myths of Illegal Abortions

Washington, DC -- "Women must have control over their own bodies."
"Safe and legal abortion is every woman's right."
"Who decides? You decide!"
"Freedom of choice -- a basic American right."

The "pro-choice movement's" emotionally compelling slogans -- fierce rallying
cries of the most successful political marketing campaign in modern history,
which made abortion-on-demand legal in the U.S. -- have been powerful
rhetorical weapons for fighting off efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade, coming up
on its 30th anniversary next month.

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard
Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion group NARAL, reminiscing about
the early days of the pro-abortion movement in the late '60s and early '70s.

"We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion.
They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are
very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL --
originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and
later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League --
as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal
architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He
tells an astonishing story.

"In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader," says Nathanson. "Lader had just finished a
book called 'Abortion,' and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion
should be legalized throughout the country. I had just finished a residency
in obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who
were coming into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal,
infected, botched abortions."

"Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the
organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this
organization and began working on the strategy."

"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal,
enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement's co-founder. "Knowing
that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply
fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive
abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to
be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of
permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done
annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the
figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000."

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women
dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we
constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the
consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the
abortion law.....................

I don't live in Denmark.

Why was America's abortion rate so low before abortion was legal?

real life wrote:

I don't live in Denmark.

I don't care. I asked a fair question. Please answer it. Why is the rate lower in Denmark? This is a world issue right? You are the one claiming that an abortion has a societal impact. Why would the fact that it happens in a different country make any difference?

Because the truth is that you don't want to admit that with a better economic policy and a more socialized government, that the abortion rate is lowered by people choosing to keep their unborn.

real life wrote:

Why was America's abortion rate so low before abortion was legal?

This question assumes it was low. Septic abortions were extremely high. So high in fact that many hospitols had entire units deticated to the care of women who attempted to poison themselves with slippery oak or some other related method. The abortion rate is also kept publically now, do you think all abortions were recorded prior to it being legal?

Come on now RL. It's obvious.

T
K
O

One thing I will never understand is why euthanasia is seen as interfering with God's prerogatives..........

A human being does not exist if the brain is either insufficiently developed or has been damaged such that it cannot generate consciousness.

It is harder to evaluate brain damage/deteriorization since it is not an exact science even with brain scans.

Yes, doctors may be wrong about the prognosis - but society accepts other physician errors which kill tens of thousands of patients each year.

A friend was just told by the oncologist that she should have her father (who is 92 with terminal cancer) starved to death!

No you don't live in Denmark, but .....
Please answer.

T
K
O

Because the truth is that you don't want to admit that with a better economic policy and a more socialized government, that the abortion rate is lowered by people choosing to keep their unborn

All women living in Denmark have the right to freely have their pregnancy terminated before the end of the 12th pregnancy week. You must go to your doctor who will refer you to a hospital that will perform the operation.

If you have passed the 12 weeks' limit you can only get an abortion under certain circumstances.

The Danish act on induced abortion stipulates that any woman aged 18 and over has a right to pregnancy termination in a public hospital at no cost to her and without stating any reasons, providing she is a resident in Denmark and the interruption is performed before the end of the 12th week of gestation.