20
   

Is this a specious argument for pro-abortion?

 
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 04:51 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Either the fetus dies or the mother dies. Take your pick.


Will you explain that Krumpie? Of the 50 million abortions since Roe/Wade how many involved that choice?


Spend it seems useless trying to have a conversation with you. If you make abortion illegal there will always be desperate women who will seek illegal abortions. This puts their health in jeopardy. When abortions were illegal there were thousands of women who died due to infections or poor handling of the operation. They were taken advantage of by alley way doctors, and perhaps some of them weren't even doctors. They took the money and ran and didn't care what would happen to these women.

The point is spend. If you are anti-abortion what is your motivation? To save a life? If that is your motivation then what about the thousands of women's lives that will be lost statistically if you make abortion illegal? You seem to want to completely ignore this fact. Pretty much all pro-lifers want to ignore this fact. They don't seem the care about women who died when abortions were illegal.

This is why I say, take your pick. Because either way you are just shifting who dies. I say it is better to save the life of the established life over the one that has not even begun or isn't even aware that it is a potential life. If you abort the fetus it doesn't even know what it is losing, where as if you let the women die who are desperate you lose an established life.

spendius
 
  -1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 07:21 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
If you make abortion illegal there will always be desperate women who will seek illegal abortions.


I know. We all know.

Quote:
This puts their health in jeopardy.


I know that too. Why didn't they when they got shagged? They put their own health in jeopardy by getting shagged. And then terminate the mite to save themselves. The mite gets it in the neck and is totally innocent. Those women are not innocent.

Quote:
When abortions were illegal there were thousands of women who died due to infections or poor handling of the operation.


I don't know about thousands. I know there were some. Possibly there still are some who can't afford the clinics of termination. If there are then your argument should follow with a demand to make terminations free. And possibly some have died from the clinics as well. When the clinic staff get the money don't they "run" too.

Quote:
If you are anti-abortion what is your motivation?


To continue to view women as nature intended. The more abortions there are the less I can do that. Maintaining the dignity of women.

Quote:
They don't seem the care about women who died when abortions were illegal.


I care. Why did they seek such remedies?

Quote:
This is why I say, take your pick. Because either way you are just shifting who dies. I say it is better to save the life of the established life over the one that has not even begun or isn't even aware that it is a potential life. If you abort the fetus it doesn't even know what it is losing, where as if you let the women die who are desperate you lose an established life.


I don't wish to deconstruct that. It's simply ridiculous.

Quote:
Spend it seems useless trying to have a conversation with you.


Would you mind desisting with that kind of thing. It has no effect on me and anybody it does have an effect upon should go back to school. It is internally absurd as well.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 12:52 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
we would be opening up a can of worms regarding women and whether they tend to have too many maudlin emotions.


I'm inclined to think Foofie that it is due to needing something to make an inordinate fuss about now that they have so many conveniences and the matter being very safe territory to perform the feat on.

Imagine regretting having an abortion and having to bottle it up for the rest of your life so as not to upset the idiots who persuaded you to have it. It is impossible to imagine such women not wondering what the little mite would have turned out like if nature had been allowed to take its course.


Affirmative!
Foofie
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 12:58 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

If you make abortion illegal, then women will become victims and you won't save any lives. All you end up doing is shifting who dies. Either the fetus dies or the mother dies. Take your pick.


I don't believe making abortion illegal would make the issue a zero sum game; however, right know it is - the fetus/baby loses (aka, dies).

You seem to have hoisted yourself by your own petard, so to speak, in my opinion.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:05 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

If you make abortion illegal there will always be desperate women who will seek illegal abortions.


Not necessarily, if the punishment to the illegal abortionist was commensurate with the death of an unborn child? Sort of like when I was allowed to walk all over our neighborhood as a seven year old child, since back in the 1950's "kidnapping" was a very,very serious crime. Very, very few kidnappings then.

Plus, in the future there could be medical ways, when a woman has certain health tests, to determine if she had an abortion. That too could be a cause for restitution (to the society that lost a contributing member of society).

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:25 pm
@Foofie,
There's something else a bit odd that nobody ever talks about.

The father sitting on the car park waiting for the procedure to be carried out. Maybe seeing the bin bags being thrown into the dumpster or some smoke coming out of a chimney. I don't suppose they are invited in to the theatre to hold their loved one's hand.

What's going through his head?

Nobody ever talks about what's going on inside the heads. I can't imagine anybody, no matter how gumpy, not feeling a twinge of guilt.

That USSC was all men I think. Never mind the three dissenters. It went through is all that matters and they might have drawn straws for who dissents. But what does it say if the dissenters were genuine.

Ye Gods!! A Senate confirmation hearing years back of political appointments notorious for the string pulling.

Why was it not a Bill in Congress? All out MPs had to sign their name on the bottom.

Phew!! Going from this, of all things, being illegal to it being legal on the bang of a gavel is some baby. Best hope that Judgement Day is a load of superstitious bullshit eh?

I know where Dante would have located those good old boys. I was viable after 1 microsecond, tops. As for being viable outside in the world I don't think I got to that until I was about 16.

Have you ever noticed how soothing "pro-choice" sounds as a euphemism for exterminating a defenceless unborn kid?

These people are talking out of the side of their mouths.
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:29 pm
@spendius,
They have been having it off with the religious dogmatists. Such easy targets aren't they?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:31 pm
@spendius,
Spendius, since you have not responded to my question as posed, perhaps I can rework it so that I can get an answer. Lemme try:

Since you see the fetus as a whole human…presumably with a soul…what do you suppose happens to fetuses that are aborted naturally or via an elected procedure by a woman choosing not to continue a pregnancy?

This is: “What do you see as the offense to the fetus of being aborted?” using other words.
Foofie
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:31 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Have you ever noticed how soothing "pro-choice" sounds as a euphemism for exterminating a defenceless unborn kid?



Ah, yes, "euphemisms." (Done in the best W.C. Fields voice one can muster.)

P.S. When did British children become "kids" also? I only thought American children could be as rambunctious as a young goat? British children were more "proper" I thought? Not little Lord Fauntleroys, but less rambunctious?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Spendius, since you have not responded to my question as posed, perhaps I can rework it so that I can get an answer. Lemme try:

Since you see the fetus as a whole human…presumably with a soul…what do you suppose happens to fetuses that are aborted naturally or via an elected procedure by a woman choosing not to continue a pregnancy?

This is: “What do you see as the offense to the fetus of being aborted?” using other words.



Let me do a Miss Piggy, and give my opinion:

A) There ain't no soul.
B) Life is still valued, even though there ain't no soul and no God.
C) The offense is terminating a life (or early infanticide, perhaps).
D) All the above are my opinion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Don't bother with that stuff Frank. If you read my contributions more carefully you would know where I'm coming from. It has nothing to do with God or souls. Where did I give you the impression I thought it has?

Your New Joisey sophistries don't work on me. And I'm quite surprised you think they do.

I've heard many a woman say, about a pregnant woman, that she's eating for two. And she ******* well is. Scientifically. They even have eating fads they didn't before they were pregnant. Something the little mite fancies maybe.

I've heard of abortion being used to select gender. Numerous times in some instances until they get what they want. Getting pregnant on purpose and then sexing the little monster and if it's the wrong one off it. Up for that are you?

I dare say nobody used "back street" abortionists for that.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 02:12 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Don't bother with that stuff Frank. If you read my contributions more carefully you would know where I'm coming from. It has nothing to do with God or souls. Where did I give you the impression I thought it has?

Your New Joisey sophistries don't work on me. And I'm quite surprised you think they do.

I've heard many a woman say, about a pregnant woman, that she's eating for two. And she ******* well is. Scientifically. They even have eating fads they didn't before they were pregnant. Something the little mite fancies maybe.

I've heard of abortion being used to select gender. Numerous times in some instances until they get what they want. Getting pregnant on purpose and then sexing the little monster and if it's the wrong one off it. Up for that are you?

I dare say nobody used "back street" abortionists for that.


I have been reading you "contributions", Spendius...carefully.

The question I asked you is not unreasonable...and apparently you are unable to respond reasonably to it.

So be it...although I thought you would at least give it a shot.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 02:22 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Spend it seems useless trying to have a conversation with you. If you make abortion illegal there will always be desperate women who will seek illegal abortions.

And most of those women will be poorer women.

The more affluent women will get on a plane and fly to a place where abortion is legal and can be performed under proper medical circumstances.

It's easy for people like spendi and Foofie to be rather cavalier in their views and their attitudes in opposing a woman's legal right to choice in the matter of abortion. They're not the one's faced with the dilemma of being in a circumstance where the birth of an unwanted, or unplanned for, child would present insurmountable challenges that the woman might not be able to manage, or that she feels she couldn't manage. And life circumstances are the reason most women give for choosing to abort.

I read recently that it costs about $10,000 for prenatal medical care during pregnancy, and for the costs of hospital delivery, and for care of a newborn. And all sorts of maternal medical problems can arise during a pregnancy that might require treatment, medication, and even hospitalization. I can't attest to the accuracy of the $10,000 amount, but any amount is costly for a woman who lacks medical coverage--and many in our country lack medical coverage.
And again, poorer women might be disproportionately affected if they lack medical insurance.

So there are women who might not be able to afford the pregnancy, let alone the cost of raising a child. If the woman is single, and she works, she might not be able to afford child care so she can continue to work and earn a paycheck in order to be able to house, and feed, and clothe, and provide medical and dental care for her child. And, if she can't work, who will support her and her child? And, if she has already existing children she can barely feed and clothe, how can she provide for another one without depriving those existing children even more? For not only her sake, but for the sake of her already existing children, she might opt to abort. And these sorts of circumstances can apply to married women as well, particularly if household finances are very tight, and not a lot of money comes into the home from the husband, or it comes in very sporadically, and the wife must work as well just to make ends meet. It costs about $200,000, I think, just to raise a child in the U.S..

Many women who do abort might make a different choice if their life circumstance was different--they might want to have a baby, if they felt they could provide, both materially and emotionally, for the child, but their current life circumstances, or maturity level, just doesn't allow for that at this time in their lives. And those women might well regret having to make that choice, that sorrowful choice, to abort, even though they might do so out of necessity--and even though they might do so with full awareness they were destroying a potential human life.

So, the pregnancy might be unwanted, but it isn't always true that the potential child is unwanted. It's just that something about that woman's life circumstances can't allow her to have that child now, or to be able to give it a decent life and adequate mothering right now, or it might harm other relationships, such as those with her already existing children. These women aren't indifferent to "life" at all--in fact, they may value "life" so much, they realize it would be unfair or wrong to bring a child into the world under certain circumstances, or it might too negatively alter the situation of their existing children's lives.

It's nice for Foofie and spendi to have hypothetical discussions about what they think these women should do, but they aren't standing in her shoes, or dealing with her life circumstances, or her internal conflicts, or her emotional state, or her responsibility for this potential child. And that's why they shouldn't be making, or limiting, the choices available to her.

I don't think they understand why a woman might choose to have an abortion out of necessity. And, if they can't understand that, they certainly couldn't understand why a desperate women would turn to a back alley hack if a, legal, medically safe, abortion was unavailable to her--even though she'd be risking her own health and life by going through that illegal abortion in unsafe, and degrading circumstances. And, if abortion is illegal, there will always be such desperate women. And some of them will die, along with their fetuses.







spendius
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 03:21 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
And most of those women will be poorer women.


Having little Democrats eh?

What makes them poor ff? Not the ridiculously uneven distribution of the nation's resources by any chance? Or is it that they are lazy, idle good-for-nothings?

Quote:
The more affluent women will get on a plane and fly to a place where abortion is legal and can be performed under proper medical circumstances.


It's amazing what services can be accessed by getting on a plane. John Lennon said that it scared him knowing what he could do in NYC with his money.

Quote:
It's easy for people like spendi and Foofie to be rather cavalier in their views and their attitudes in opposing a woman's legal right to choice in the matter of abortion.


I'll accept "cavalier" in the sense of the opposite to a Roundhead. Not in the sense of being easy going and careless. If you meant the latter you're just up to your usual infantile tricks. I'm not in the least easy-going about this matter. You're just rattled because you are used to the shallow end with the God-squad and thinking that a sick priest diddling a choirboy sanctifies 50 million abortions and counting.

Quote:
They're not the one's faced with the dilemma of being in a circumstance where the birth of an unwanted, or unplanned for, child would present insurmountable challenges that the woman might not be able to manage, or that she feels she couldn't manage.


She creates the dilemma. And she could have the kid adopted. And what causes the insurmountable challenges and her not being able to manage? Not the uneven distribution of wealth I suppose.


Quote:
And, if she can't work, who will support her and her child?


We will. What sort of a society won't support its newborn babies when it has hundreds of thousands of fancy restaurants to name but one item on a very long list of self-indulgent ego wanking.

I do understand all those things you write about. I am well aware of how much harder it is to be a woman than it is for a man. Incomparably so imo.

My attempt, feeble as it is, is to render the USSC decision irrelevant because nobody would ever want an abortion again. You and Krumpie are not the audience I am aiming at. I'm aiming at those women you are talking about. To give them the backing they are not getting. Sure it's tough. Who said life is easy?

And I don't rate that "many women" type of argument either.

spendius
 
  0  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 03:25 pm
@spendius,
Could it be that there are 50 million less Democrats thanks to Roe/Wade?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 04:03 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
My attempt, feeble as it is, is to render the USSC decision irrelevant because nobody would ever want an abortion again. You and Krumpie are not the audience I am aiming at. I'm aiming at those women you are talking about. To give them the backing they are not getting. Sure it's tough. Who said life is easy?


And all the women who are demanding that they be allowed to choose for themselves are just kidding...or mistaken about what they want?

They should come to you...and you will be able to tell them what they really want?

C'mon, Spendius, are you being serious here or are you just seeing how ridiculous you can get on this issue before we all catch on that you are pulling our leg?
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 04:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
They should come to you...and you will be able to tell them what they really want?


That's right Frank. Some proper sex lessons in schools to show them how to handle you stubbies rather than spending their lives being manipulated into taking it your way.

Think of poor ff and Krumpie finding themselves on the same side as you Frank on a question like this. That's worse than manipulation. It's having your head fucked off your shoulders.

**** 'em and if there's any difficulties whip 'em down to the clinic. It's hygienic. What more do they want?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 6 Sep, 2012 05:12 pm
@spendius,
We do indeed find ourselves in odd company on some of these contentious issues, Spendius, but the fact that it is happening here should not be a reason to get as bent out of shape as you are getting.

A woman has the right to make a choice...and even if you disagree, to suggest that you know what choice she would make to a greater degree of certainty than she would know...seems like a stretch of galactic proportions.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2012 01:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
There's far more pressing things than worrying about a few cells that may have had the potential to become a person. Why don't we have funerals everytime someone cracks one off, with tissue lined coffins?

There are living breathing real children who don't have enough to eat. That's something to protest against, not what will never be.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2012 03:27 am
@izzythepush,
I agree...I agree very, very much.

But since Spendius seems to think the clump of cells is a full person...and since the Catholic Church teaches that a full person includes a soul which will live for all of eternity...it seems the anti-choice people who are Catholic have to deal with the problem that the major consequence of abortion on the fetus...is a free ticket into Heaven to be with their GOD for all of eternity.

Sorta like making the fine for a speeding ticket be a two week vacation in Bermuda with all expenses paid.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 11:30:23