2
   

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

 
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 04:09 am
This question of abortions should be put up for public referendum every 4-5 years (time it with presidential or parliamentary elections, whatever). Let the people decide. If public opinion changes over time, then the laws can change to reflect that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 05:01 am
Grand Duke wrote:
This question of abortions should be put up for public referendum every 4-5 years (time it with presidential or parliamentary elections, whatever). Let the people decide. If public opinion changes over time, then the laws can change to reflect that.


Well, nice idea, Grand Duke.

However, why reduce this only to abortion? Drugs, drinking age, salaries, ...

We, here in Germany, have delegated such things lake law making to our Members of Parliament - a system, which is generally known as parliamentary democracy.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 05:17 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
We, here in Germany, have delegated such things lake law making to our Members of Parliament - a system, which is generally known as parliamentary democracy.


Smile Perhaps the general public would do a better job than the politcicians? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 05:21 am
Hmm - I wouldn't support a plebiscite that much.
0 Replies
 
KellyS
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 12:17 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
KellyS wrote:
I acknowledge that even the point of union of sperm and egg will not garner the necessary agreement, but I believe that it is a human once the sperm and egg have united and that anything which interferes with the child's development from then on constitutes murder.

So then you'd agree that a sexually active woman who takes oral contraceptives or has an IUD is potentially a murderer?


For those contraceptives which permit conception, but not implantation; or which automatically induce the monthly flow, implantation or not, YES.

For the IUDs, yes.

I understand that there are contraceptives which inhibit the release of the eggs, thus preventing conception in the first place. For those, NO. I disagree with the Pope here, obviously.

I also support the use of condoms, by both him and her, to prevent the union of the sperm and the egg.

I think you understood, and rephrased me, correctly for the most part. I am one who does call for drawing fine lines rather than painting with large brushes.

Kelly
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 12:43 pm
Kelly you're just choosing to draw your fine lines in different spots that most.

KellyS wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
KellyS wrote:
I acknowledge that even the point of union of sperm and egg will not garner the necessary agreement, but I believe that it is a human once the sperm and egg have united and that anything which interferes with the child's development from then on constitutes murder.

So then you'd agree that a sexually active woman who takes oral contraceptives or has an IUD is potentially a murderer?


For those contraceptives which permit conception, but not implantation; or which automatically induce the monthly flow, implantation or not, YES.

For the IUDs, yes.

I understand that there are contraceptives which inhibit the release of the eggs, thus preventing conception in the first place. For those, NO. I disagree with the Pope here, obviously.

I also support the use of condoms, by both him and her, to prevent the union of the sperm and the egg.

I think you understood, and rephrased me, correctly for the most part. I am one who does call for drawing fine lines rather than painting with large brushes.

Kelly
0 Replies
 
KellyS
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 02:28 pm
Jer wrote:
Kelly you're just choosing to draw your fine lines in different spots that most.


Different? Different!? He dares to call me different!

Acutally I really don't like to be called "same". Or is it "sane"? Smile
And I decline all connections with normal.

Realistically, while I do agree with you, I do think it is more a case of not being satisfied with the broad brush arguments that I hear so much from both sides.

It seems to me that the dabate is only phrased as black and white. Although there seem to be differences in where the black and white really are.

I believe most strongly that once the egg and sperm unite there is a baby. However, I will also support contraception that prevents that union, but not support contraception which actually aborts that union.

It seems to me that there is way too much emotion involved in the debate and way too little rationality or reason. An all or nothing argument seems to be waged by both sides. I mentioned the Pope as one example because he, and his advisors, don't consider the options of not letting conception happen while a couple still enjoys sex when both are most able to enjoy it (when she is most likely to become pregnant.). I don't see it as all or nothing. I am trying to offer some sort of reasoning into the discussion.

Kelly
Who doesn't expect much reasoning to happen because the two sides are arguing two different things most of the time.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 03:17 pm
KellyS wrote:
Jer wrote:
Kelly you're just choosing to draw your fine lines in different spots that most.


Different? Different!? He dares to call me different!

Acutally I really don't like to be called "same". Or is it "sane"? Smile
And I decline all connections with normal.

Realistically, while I do agree with you, I do think it is more a case of not being satisfied with the broad brush arguments that I hear so much from both sides.

It seems to me that the dabate is only phrased as black and white. Although there seem to be differences in where the black and white really are.

I believe most strongly that once the egg and sperm unite there is a baby. However, I will also support contraception that prevents that union, but not support contraception which actually aborts that union.


Do you also "most strongly" "believe" that an egg is a chicken?



Oh, well...that is the problem with you people who do all this "believing" nonsense.

Some of you want to prevent a woman from controlling her own body...and some of you want to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings.

Sure wish something could be done to stop all that "believing"--because it is turning planet Earth into a cesspool.
0 Replies
 
Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 04:56 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
To describe that as "throwing away a baby" is absurd...and rather evil (not a word I use often), in my opinion.


and we all know why you don't use that word often, don't we?

because you don't believe we have enough evidence for the existence of god....therefore, who is to say what is good and what is evil....

i know your reasoning....right and wrong must be subjective....the only way it could be objective is if there were a god to define it for us, right?

with this kind of reasoning, murder, rape, etc... are 'ok'...these same things occur in nature (with animals) and we don't hold them accountable or imprison them...because it's only 'natural', right? we, being human are 'natural' as well....

and so i ask you to retract your usage of 'evil' against me....because i know you don't believe in 'evil' the same way most people do...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 05:12 pm
Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
To describe that as "throwing away a baby" is absurd...and rather evil (not a word I use often), in my opinion.


and we all know why you don't use that word often, don't we?

because you don't believe we have enough evidence for the existence of god....therefore, who is to say what is good and what is evil....

i know your reasoning....right and wrong must be subjective....the only way it could be objective is if there were a god to define it for us, right?

with this kind of reasoning, murder, rape, etc... are 'ok'...these same things occur in nature (with animals) and we don't hold them accountable or imprison them...because it's only 'natural', right? we, being human are 'natural' as well....

and so i ask you to retract your usage of 'evil' against me....because i know you don't believe in 'evil' the same way most people do...



Seems you know an awful lot for someone who has just come on the scene!

My guess is that your name is phony...and your supposed location is also. And I suspect I've encountered you over in Abuzz.



In any case, calling the difficult decision of getting an abortion "throwing away a baby" is both absurd....and evil. So I must respectfully decline your request for a retraction.

If you would like to discuss the issue, however, I will be delighted to accomodate you.
0 Replies
 
Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 05:30 pm
never in my life have i navigated to abuzz....i've only heard about it's existence through members of this site...

almost everyones name on a forum is phony....

anyone could 'know' this info about you simply by reading your previous posts in this forum..is it so unlikely that i have done so?

and by the way, i would love to hear your defintion of 'evil'...
0 Replies
 
KellyS
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 03:11 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you also "most strongly" "believe" that an egg is a chicken?


Yes, a fertilized egg does constitute a chicken.

Now, before we get into a side argument, I have no qualms about killing chickens since they are not humans and are regular sources of food.

Quote:
Some of you want to prevent a woman from controlling her own body....


This is very much akin to the old definition of freedom. My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. In this case the woman's freedom becomes constricted when she becomes pregnant. However, there should be much more support for her not getting pregnant, and that mostly means the religions backing off on their opposition to some forms of birth control. It also requires a significant shift in the American, and world, culture to absolutely forbid rape, and make the penalty for rape most severe, such as full castration in addition to jail time and monetary penalty. I lump incest in with rape because it is merely a family member forcing himself on the woman, rather than a stranger.

Quote:
Sure wish something could be done to stop all that "believing"--because it is turning planet Earth into a cesspool.

Believing is a core value as opposed to merely thinking which is an academic exercise.

As far as the sanitation system of the world, I think the cess pool argument could be carried back a long time before organized religions. It's just that back then there were fewer people and the world could break down their waste faster than they produced it.

Kelly
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 05:25 am
KellyS wrote:
My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. In this case the woman's freedom becomes constricted when she becomes pregnant.



I really agree that personal freedom has to be deliberated against e.g. other persons freedom.
Thus, here in Germany the Freedom of expresssion is limited by the right to inviolabity of personal honours.

So, the personal freedom of a pregnant woman - in your opinion - is constricted, obviously because of .... yes, my question is, of who's rights, which in this case must be superior to her's.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 08:18 am
KellyS wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
So then you'd agree that a sexually active woman who takes oral contraceptives or has an IUD is potentially a murderer?


For those contraceptives which permit conception, but not implantation; or which automatically induce the monthly flow, implantation or not, YES.

For the IUDs, yes.

I appreciate your direct response. Indeed, I think that is the only possible response that you, or anyone else who holds that life begins at conception, could make.

Birth control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. IUDs probably function in the same way, although there is remains some mystery as to how exactly they work. Injectable contraceptives (Depo-Provera) and hormonal patches (progestin, Norplant) work to prevent eggs from being released into the uterus, but they also prevent implantation. All of these methods, then, can lead to the "murder" of fertilized eggs.

The question, then, is what to do with these birth control methods. Take, for instance, the case of a sexually active, pre-menopausal woman who regularly takes oral contraceptives. How are we to determine if she is a murderer? Well, a microscopic examination of her menses might reveal a fertilized egg. This, however, is a rather laborious, time-consuming procedure -- and multiplied by the millions of women who take oral contraceptives, the task becomes unimaginably difficult.

The only feasible solution, then, would be to ban all oral contraceptives, IUDs, injectable contraceptives, and hormonal patches, on the grounds that, though they may not, in any particular instance, cause the death of a fertilized egg, yet on the whole they are designed to do just that.

Would you then agree that such contraceptives should be banned entirely?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 09:03 am
Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:
never in my life have i navigated to abuzz....i've only heard about it's existence through members of this site...

almost everyones name on a forum is phony....

anyone could 'know' this info about you simply by reading your previous posts in this forum..is it so unlikely that i have done so?

and by the way, i would love to hear your defintion of 'evil'...


I haven't posted anything in this forum for several months.

I'm not sure what you have read...but I think more than just your name is phony.

In any case, we can discuss anything you like.

As for my definition of evil...well, one thing I think is evil is the kind of thing you did when you wrote that abortion is throwing away a baby.

How do you define evil?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 09:12 am
KellyS wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you also "most strongly" "believe" that an egg is a chicken?


Yes, a fertilized egg does constitute a chicken.

Now, before we get into a side argument, I have no qualms about killing chickens since they are not humans and are regular sources of food.


If you think a fertized egg is a chicken...you have problems too severe for me to deal with.

I would suggest psychiatric help.



Quote:
Quote:
Some of you want to prevent a woman from controlling her own body....


This is very much akin to the old definition of freedom. My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. In this case the woman's freedom becomes constricted when she becomes pregnant. However, there should be much more support for her not getting pregnant, and that mostly means the religions backing off on their opposition to some forms of birth control. It also requires a significant shift in the American, and world, culture to absolutely forbid rape, and make the penalty for rape most severe, such as full castration in addition to jail time and monetary penalty. I lump incest in with rape because it is merely a family member forcing himself on the woman, rather than a stranger.


Well...while I agree that more should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies...I still think that a woman should have control over her own body regardless of whether she is pregnant or not. And all I can do is hope that the heartless, unthinking people who think otherwise don't get a chance to call the shots in this regard.

It might be noted that there is no way abortions are going to end. The question is not whether abortions are going to take place...but whether they are going to be performed as safely as possible...or if they are going to be performed in squalid circumstances with coat hangers.



Quote:
Quote:
Sure wish something could be done to stop all that "believing"--because it is turning planet Earth into a cesspool.

Believing is a core value as opposed to merely thinking which is an academic exercise.


Horseshyt! Believing is nothing more than guessing...and trying to dress it up as being "core values" is self-serving pap.


Quote:
As far as the sanitation system of the world, I think the cess pool argument could be carried back a long time before organized religions. It's just that back then there were fewer people and the world could break down their waste faster than they produced it.

Kelly


Perhaps you had something to say here...but it didn't get said. If you were trying for humor...it failed.
0 Replies
 
Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 10:29 am
i for one, BELIEVE kelly to be right on.....frank, your lack of heart is disturbing....if i had a child that turned out to be like you i would feel as if i had committed a most grievous error to earth...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 10:46 am
An egg is a chicken?


That is going to surprise a lot of chefs, and no, that's not nearly as odd a statement as an egg being a chicken.


<shakes head>
0 Replies
 
mchol
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 08:41 pm
My comments are in bold.

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

i'm sure we all appreciate your feelings here and sharing this with all of us....this is a very difficult subject and i hope i haven't offended you too much...

allow me to make a few more statements based on your quote here...not necessarily directed at you because i'm sure millions of would-be mothers have the same reasons as you have xpressed here..

emotional - - - one might say that if you're not emotionally ready to be a mother you shouldn't be having sex....

You make a point here that sounds like it makes sense, but in reality, it just sounds good. A person can be completely mature and emotionally ready to engage in sex, as long you love and care about that partner, as in my situation. Those two things (being emotionally ready for an intimate relationship and raising a child) are on completely different levels. Some people get married and never end up having children for that same reason, they aren't ready to have children. They don't want children. So don't tell me that if you're ready to have sex, you're ready to have kids!!!!

physical - - - depending on what you mean by physical, this seems more of a selfish excuse....

I smoke. A lot. And when I'm ready to have children I'm going to quit. Whether I smoke or not is my business too.

financial - - - many have family that are more than willing to 'help out'....giving a baby up for adoption is another alternative....of course the government offers many assistance programs as well...

I couldn't burden my family members with raising a child they did not ask for. If I ever have a child, I will be taking care of him/her. Because that's my responsibility, BUT- I am not at a point in my life to commit to such a huge responsibility! I did not only myself a favor, but also that fetus, my parents, and the taxpayers.

you say you couldn't guarantee the baby a 'happy' life....so.....you choose no life at all....that just doesn't seem logical to me...

It's not that I couldn't guarantee that baby a "happy life," it's that I TRULY POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY 100% GUARANTEE that child not to have a happy life. So, is it fair to put a child through all that misery from the get-go???
0 Replies
 
KellyS
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 11:40 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

Would you then agree that such contraceptives should be banned entirely?


I do agree with the basic idea of banning all contraceptive means which result in the death of the child, chemical or mechanical.

That does not mean banning all the chemicals involved, because some of them have very good uses for other purposes.



Someone else noted, and I thank you for saying that because I remembered it and then it slipped my mind while I typed other things, that abortions have always happened and the question is whether they will be allowed to continue in clean environments or in back alleys with coat hangers. This is an excellent point with way too much truth in it. Is 100% truth too much?

Changes in culture and religious positions must be made to stop the necessity of using abortions for birth control.

I have already said that penalties for rape need to me extreme.

The religions must get their collective craniums out of their collective lower waste elimination tracts. Sex has been happening rather continiously since at least Adam and Eve. I think it is reasonable to expect it to continue. The expressed, and acted upon, moral outrage over pre-marital sex must be toned down and discussed frankly with young men and women. Those folks need to know what happens when peg A goes in hole B.

Yes, I DO support sex education in the schools by people who can explain the whole process, and results, without stammering or blushing the whole time. Education has been documented time and again to reduce the amount of premarital sex and premarital pregnancies. This can and should include explicit statements that the best way to avoid pregnancy is not to have sex. But all the rest of the information needs to be clearly stated without moral/religious judgements attached.

There are also issues of women, in marriages, not wanting any more children, but not wanting to give up sex, or deny their husbands. There are various social pressures, economic pressures, and for my point here, religious pressures on them not to employ preventive measures. Trouble is that too many of them then turn to abortion to "fix" the problem. The culture has to change so that these women have access to preventive measures without all the social and especially religious pressures against such measures.

Preventive contraceptives must be made more readily available, without embarassment or shame, to younger people. A short list is: codoms, diaphrams, sponges, foam. I know there would be horrendous outcry, but the idea of putting condom machines in the high school restrooms, for a price, seems reasonable to me.

There are chemicals which do prevent ovulation. These should be talked up more so that women know which pills work which way. I suspect if you were to conduct a survey of 100 randomly chosen women you would find most of them know what "the pill" is supposed to do, "prevent pregnancy", but they don't know how the different versions work.

More development needs to be done toward an effective male contraceptive. One that allows him to fire blanks. This seems to be tricky because things tried so far tend to reduce desire, reduce ability to penetrate, and/or reduce staying power. Maybe it would have to be something he takes every day, but it must not reduce interest, ability, or stamina. Yes I support condom use, but I also find that they reduce sensitivity and my pleasure significantly. I can't speak for the effects of the female condoms. If there is a woman in this debate perhaps she can inform of us whether the woman finds any reduction in sensations from a female condom.

So there are some things I think need to happen to reduce the overall need for abortions. I honestly don't expect the religions to change their pitch and rules, although I think all of them should, and could without violation of their truly basic tennants. Cultural changes have been documented to take a minimum of twenty years. But those numbers are for the majority, and for general response/behavior. Pockets of resistance remain for much longer times, even multiple generations. But these things attack the root causes of why people find themselves in want of an abortion. Changing them will go a very long way toward removing the demand for abortions.

Kelly
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:39:24