ABORTION.......

Terry,

What do you mean there is no baby to cry over? The second I knew there was a baby growing inside of me, there was a baby to cry over.

And Terry, just because a woman may become pregnant while on drugs or alcohol, it does not take the responsibility for her actions away from her. That is just an excuse for making mistakes.

I would venture to say that most abortions are not performed on a person practicing birth control, would you?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Am I reading that correctly? ....allowed to use birth control in our pursuit of happiness? I take it you mean having sex with no consequences?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Women should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing his child. (And in case you are wondering, I will be celebrating 30 years of faithful marriage this year.) I want my 21-year-old daughter to be able to enjoy herself for a few more years, graduate from college, and get a good start on her career before making me a grandmother!

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
To put it quite bluntly... They should have thought of that before laying down. Other than cases of rape, or imminent medical distress to the mother, they are pregnant by their own actions. This has been discussed way back in this thread.

You cry for the pregnant woman who made a poor choice. I will cry for the baby that does not have a choice or anybody to make a stand for him/her.

No birth control method is 100% effective, and there are many reasons why they fail including ignorance. Women do make poor choices, often under the influence of drugs and alcohol. IMO, these women have not demonstrated good motherhood potential, and requiring irresponsible (or unlucky) women to become mothers while allowing responsible women to remain child-free, makes absolutely no sense.

Most abortions are done very early in the pregnancy, when no baby exists for you to cry over.

You go on believing that. Now abortion is a result of ineffective birth control devices, ignorance, drugs and alcohol. Then you go on to say that they have not demonstrated good motherhood potential. How do you equate your statement that birth control is not 100% effective with being a potentially bad mother. Then, you make the statement that responsible women are child-free. There may be a coherent point in there somewhere, but it is lost in the rhetoric.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I would venture to say that most abortions are not performed on a person practicing birth control, would you?

Then you would be wrong:

Quote:

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[11]

8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated.[12]

49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned;[13] 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception.[14]

As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.[15]
Abortion statistics

0 Replies

I admit I had to read it more than once. 54% used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant and 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using them incorrectly

This isn't irresponsible?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

What do you mean there is no baby to cry over? The second I knew there was a baby growing inside of me, there was a baby to cry over.

OK, I felt the same way. :wink: But I became pregnant by choice, 5 years into a stable marriage, under the influence of a surprisingly strong maternal instinct. I was astounded at the feeling of love that swept over me when I first saw my newborn son (my daughter is my second child so I was expecting it). During pregnancy I refered to him as a baby (not a fetus) but did not think of him as a real person until I actually saw him.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Am I reading that correctly? ....allowed to use birth control in our pursuit of happiness? I take it you mean having sex with no consequences?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Women should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing his child. (And in case you are wondering, I will be celebrating 30 years of faithful marriage this year.) I want my 21-year-old daughter to be able to enjoy herself for a few more years, graduate from college, and get a good start on her career before making me a grandmother!

So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

So if the woman is pregnant and wants to have the child and raise it, but the man says "Men should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing a child." What would you say?

Did you teach your daughter that sex was basically "recreation"? How irresponsible.

You taught her to treat herself and others as toys, objects of pleasure to be used and disposed of. I hope she teaches her children better, that is if she manages to find a husband who doesn't think she is an object to be used and disposed of.

I hope when you are old she does not look for a way to dispose of you when you are no longer fun to take care of.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Terry wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Am I reading that correctly? ....allowed to use birth control in our pursuit of happiness? I take it you mean having sex with no consequences?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Women should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing his child. (And in case you are wondering, I will be celebrating 30 years of faithful marriage this year.) I want my 21-year-old daughter to be able to enjoy herself for a few more years, graduate from college, and get a good start on her career before making me a grandmother!

So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

So if the woman is pregnant and wants to have the child and raise it, but the man says "Men should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing a child." What would you say?

Did you teach your daughter that sex was basically "recreation"? How irresponsible.

You taught her to treat herself and others as toys, objects of pleasure to be used and disposed of. I hope she teaches her children better, that is if she manages to find a husband who doesn't think she is an object to be used and disposed of.

I hope when you are old she does not look for a way to dispose of you when you are no longer fun to take care of.

This is pretty damn condescending. F*U*C*K you, boy (I mean it like you have the intellect of a boy).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

The decision of whether to abort a fetus is the woman's, but should be made with consideration of her doctor's advice and hopefully after consultation with the biological father.

Quote:

So if the woman is pregnant and wants to have the child and raise it, but the man says "Men should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing a child." What would you say?

Responsible sex with freely consenting adults, yes. Not by means of coercion or drugs, incest, or with minors. The issue of involuntary fatherhood has been addressed on other threads.

Quote:

Did you teach your daughter that sex was basically "recreation"? How irresponsible.

You taught her to treat herself and others as toys, objects of pleasure to be used and disposed of. I hope she teaches her children better, that is if she manages to find a husband who doesn't think she is an object to be used and disposed of.

You have reached some unjustified conclusions. Try responding to what is actually said instead of your own misconceptions. No, I did not lay a guilt trip on my daughter for enjoying her sexuality. I talked to her about responsible sex and consequences, and I cannot imagine her treating herself or anyone else as nothing more than an object of pleasure. She has a much healthier attitude than the one imposed on me by my mother.

Quote:

I hope when you are old she does not look for a way to dispose of you when you are no longer fun to take care of.

I don't think that will be a problem. I hope you are as fortunate in your old age, if you have kids.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
Terry wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Am I reading that correctly? ....allowed to use birth control in our pursuit of happiness? I take it you mean having sex with no consequences?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. Women should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing his child. (And in case you are wondering, I will be celebrating 30 years of faithful marriage this year.) I want my 21-year-old daughter to be able to enjoy herself for a few more years, graduate from college, and get a good start on her career before making me a grandmother!

So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

So if the woman is pregnant and wants to have the child and raise it, but the man says "Men should be able to enjoy healthy, recreational sex with anyone they like, even if they have no intention of bearing a child." What would you say?

Did you teach your daughter that sex was basically "recreation"? How irresponsible.

You taught her to treat herself and others as toys, objects of pleasure to be used and disposed of. I hope she teaches her children better, that is if she manages to find a husband who doesn't think she is an object to be used and disposed of.

I hope when you are old she does not look for a way to dispose of you when you are no longer fun to take care of.

This is pretty damn condescending. F*U*C*K you, boy (I mean it like you have the intellect of a boy).

This conversation, as far as I am concerned, will continue without you as well.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

real life wrote:
So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

The decision of whether to abort a fetus is the woman's, but should be made with consideration of her doctor's advice and hopefully after consultation with the biological father.

So if the father does not want her to kill his child, what difference would that make in your view of the "right" of the woman?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
snood wrote:
"Until it is born, it is not a living being."

So, to the list of delusional, close-minded and ill-mannered, I can add just plain old stupid.

F**k off, boy.

That is totally uncalled for and, IMO racist. You have gone over the line here Frank.

F**k off, Intrepid!

This conversation can be carried on without you, Frank. I, for one, will no longer respond to your posts due to this type of response on your part.

Well you should have stopped long ago, Life....not because of the way I answer....but because of the way you answer.

You really do not do a very good job of defending your position.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Terry wrote:
real life wrote:
So the decision whether to have the child live or die is the mother's alone, is that right?

The decision of whether to abort a fetus is the woman's, but should be made with consideration of her doctor's advice and hopefully after consultation with the biological father.

So if the father does not want her to kill his child, what difference would that make in your view of the "right" of the woman?

This is not about killing a child....it is about obtaining an abortion.

YES...it is the woman's choice alone to make.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
Frank, will you answer my questions?

What qualities do you think a being must possess in order to be said to have a 'right' to life? Why are these qualities important? When, in the transition between fertilized egg and baby, does the evidence you have seen suggest these qualities emerge?

I don't know how to say this more clearly than I have on probably a half-dozen different occasions in this thread...

...but until the zygote, embryo, or fetus (as the case may be) is fully and completely born into this world (totally exits its host's body)...

...I see no reason to assume that it has rights that cause its host to lose any of her rights.

Period.

It is not a "person"...or a "living being" in my opinion...until it is fully and completely born into this world....fully exited from its host's body.

I can see no logic in this.

Well open up your eyes....becuase there is plenty in there.

There is no logic here, you have merely stated your opinion. There may be some logic behind this opinion, but it is not present in this response.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
It seems entirely arbitrary.

In what respect?

First of all, I'll assume that my 'right' to freedom should be limited to some extent, and that this freedom does not extend to killing other people. Is that a fair assumption?

If so, then you need to explain what differences between a fetus (especially in the very late stages of pregnancy) and a baby make it justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of babies, but not justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of fetuses. Merely stating that the difference is that one is in the womb and the other is not, without explaining why the difference is important, makes the statement arbitrary.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
One could say it is not a "person"...or a "living being" until it is 18 years of age, or until it has smoked a cigar, or run the four minute mile, but merely stating it and saying 'Period' doesn't make it an respectable argument.

Well why should I accept a definition that has a clump of cells bearly the size of a pin head considered a living being....

I don't know. I have asked the same question to others on this thread myself.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...and have to deal with someone using that absurd definition calling my definition of "until fully born into this world" illogical??????

It would appear that you have managed to convince yourself that because I question the relevance of the distinction you are making between a fetus and a baby, I must therefore believe conception to be the relevant point of distinction. I am not using that 'absurd definition'. I have questioned it on this thread. I am also questioning your distinctions, which also seem absurd. Please reassure me that your defense of your position is a bit more solid than merely pointing out that there are other, more absurd, positions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Why does a child have rights? Why do humans have rights at all? If I hadn't read you elsewhere, I'd think you must believe in some scripture-writing deity who ordained that rights begin at birth. Why else would you believe that rights suddenly appear from nowhere at this moment?

I suggest you re-read my comments. You are so far off base...and making so many wild assumptions...it simply does not make sense for me to discuss this in this way.

If you have a specific disagreement with me...put it out here. I will deal with it.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am questioning your position in an attempt to understand its moral foundations.

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

"Rights"...as I have often mentioned...are a fiction. They truly do not exist as a set of specifics.

A person is born into this world...when it exits its host's body...and has freedom or the right...to do any damn thing it wants.

Governments are instituted among humans to limit that freedom...those unlimited rights. We outlaw certain conduct...usually for reasons that have to do with allowing society to function.

But not just to allow society to function. Also to make society more, well, good. That would be why, for example, torture is illegal. Or is it only wrong to kill because having a law against killing generally make society run more smoothly? If not, if there is something morally wrong with killing, then you must explain why it is morally wrong to kill a person, and why this does not also make it wrong to kill a nearly-born fetus.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

djbt. Meet Frank.

Thanks for the introduction. Seems like I missed a lot of fun over the past few pages... Anyone else feel much of this would be better placed in a reality TV show rather than a discussion forum...

In most threads I've read, I've been in agreement with Frank, so have found his approach unproductive and annoying. But now, when I'm not sure which side I fall onto, I've realised its use in promoting debate. Unfortunately, a side-effect is that it tends to lower the level of debate into mere statement of opinion, shouting and name-calling. Fortunate that here we have good people like Terry who are willing to offer facts, research and calm debate to offset this...

By the way, still no-one has challenged the articles Terry posted.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

djbt wrote:
You seem to be saying that a 'human being' has rights, or at least trump-suit rights, which living beings that are not human beings do not have. To rephrase my questions:

(1) What qualities must a something possess to be called a 'human being'?
(2) Why do these qualities mean that a 'human being' has 'rights'?
(3) At what stage of pregnancy does a fetus develop these qualities?

(1) A functioning human brain with the capacity for self-awareness.
(2) There are no inherent rights. The only "rights" anyone has are those granted to them by society in which they live. Rights may be granted to enable the society to function better or out of empathy for the feelings and aspirations of our fellow human beings.
(3) The fetal brain takes at least 24 weeks to develop to the point where self-awareness might be possible. At 30 weeks it is a functioning human brain by anyone's defination, but its capacity for self-awareness is still questionable.

Thnaks for this Terry. Could you explain what you mean by 'self-awareness'? Do you mean ability to experience, i.e. having sensations? If so, could it not be the case that any brainwaves could be evidence of this?

Or do you mean having a sense of self? Very much a layman in this area, but I have heard it suggested that a sense of self does not emerge until some time after birth, at the 'Lacan mirror phase'. What is you opinion on this?

0 Replies

This is not about killing a child, it is about abortion?! Guess I'm not too smart then because it seems to be the same thing to me. If it wasn't about killing a child, then I don't think there would be so much controversary about it.

Terry, you think it's ok for someone to just have recreational sex with whomever they please? I really hope I read that wrong.

maporsche, I think that comment was very uncalled for.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

There is no logic here, you have merely stated your opinion. There may be some logic behind this opinion, but it is not present in this response.

Yeah, there is. There really is. But you still have your eyes closed.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
It seems entirely arbitrary.

In what respect?

First of all, I'll assume that my 'right' to freedom should be limited to some extent, and that this freedom does not extend to killing other people. Is that a fair assumption?

Yup!

Quote:

If so, then you need to explain what differences between a fetus (especially in the very late stages of pregnancy) and a baby make it justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of babies, but not justifiable to limit freedom to prevent the killing of fetuses. Merely stating that the difference is that one is in the womb and the other is not, without explaining why the difference is important, makes the statement arbitrary.

How the hell can you people consider a statement like: The moment an egg is fertilized...there is a whole living human being present....to be logical and reasonable...

...and then consider my comment: "Until it is born into this world...it is not a whole living human being"...to be arbitrary????

Do you have any brains?

Do you use them?

Try again.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
One could say it is not a "person"...or a "living being" until it is 18 years of age, or until it has smoked a cigar, or run the four minute mile, but merely stating it and saying 'Period' doesn't make it an respectable argument.

Well why should I accept a definition that has a clump of cells bearly the size of a pin head considered a living being....

I don't know. I have asked the same question to others on this thread myself.

Frank Apisa wrote:
...and have to deal with someone using that absurd definition calling my definition of "until fully born into this world" illogical??????

It would appear that you have managed to convince yourself that because I question the relevance of the distinction you are making between a fetus and a baby, I must therefore believe conception to be the relevant point of distinction. I am not using that 'absurd definition'.

Well others have.

Question them on that...and then come back and question me. You may have a better appreciation of my position if you work that way.

Quote:

I have questioned it on this thread. I am also questioning your distinctions, which also seem absurd.

How the hell can you consider "It is my opinion that until there is birth...there is no "living human being" present"...to be absurd?

Until birth...the object is called a fetus. A fetus....IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

Quote:

Please reassure me that your defense of your position is a bit more solid than merely pointing out that there are other, more absurd, positions.

Okay...please be reassured that my defens of my position is a great deal more solidly grounded than merely pointing out the absurdities of the opposition.

Open your eyes...and you will see and agree.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
Why does a child have rights? Why do humans have rights at all? If I hadn't read you elsewhere, I'd think you must believe in some scripture-writing deity who ordained that rights begin at birth. Why else would you believe that rights suddenly appear from nowhere at this moment?

I suggest you re-read my comments. You are so far off base...and making so many wild assumptions...it simply does not make sense for me to discuss this in this way.

If you have a specific disagreement with me...put it out here. I will deal with it.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am questioning your position in an attempt to understand its moral foundations.

I went on to explain further...and I hope you do now understand its moral foundations.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

"Rights"...as I have often mentioned...are a fiction. They truly do not exist as a set of specifics.

A person is born into this world...when it exits its host's body...and has freedom or the right...to do any damn thing it wants.

Governments are instituted among humans to limit that freedom...those unlimited rights. We outlaw certain conduct...usually for reasons that have to do with allowing society to function.

But not just to allow society to function. Also to make society more, well, good. That would be why, for example, torture is illegal. Or is it only wrong to kill because having a law against killing generally make society run more smoothly? If not, if there is something morally wrong with killing, then you must explain why it is morally wrong to kill a person, and why this does not also make it wrong to kill a nearly-born fetus.

I don't have to do any of that...but I have several times already in this thread. I suspect you are voluntarily blind to any arguments in this respect, in any case...so it probably will not register.

If a woman wants to end her pregnancy...it is my opinion that she should be able to do it for whatever reasons she wants...and whenever she wants.

If you want to characterize that as "killing a nearly-born fetus"...do so.

I consider it ending a pregnancy that she wants to end.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

maporsche, I think that comment was very uncalled for.

But you have nothing to say about his?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

This is not about killing a child, it is about abortion?!

That is correct. Repeat it to yourself several times....and maybe it will penetrate.

Quote:

Guess I'm not too smart then because it seems to be the same thing to me.

I am willing to agree that you are not too smart....and perhaps that is the reason you think it is the same thing.

It isn't.

Quote:

If it wasn't about killing a child, then I don't think there would be so much controversary about it.

Well...it isn't about killing a child. That is simply something your side wants to paint it to be. We are discussing abortion...the termination of a pregnancy. It is not about killing...it is about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know