Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 218
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swindall View Post
    I would have to respectfully disagree.

    If a women wants to abort the baby because she's not ready for children and thus won't be able to take proper care of the child. If a women was raped (as I said earlier) and didn't want a child - especially when the father of said child is a rapist.. (and the list goes on)...

    In these instances theres valid reasons, to say my son might be gay and THATS the reason... Then you are assuming homosexuality is wrong in itself - that is debateable. Therefore, it is not a valid reason.
    What about abortions out of convenience?
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swindall View Post
    In these instances theres valid reasons, to say my son might be gay and THATS the reason... Then you are assuming homosexuality is wrong in itself - that is debateable. Therefore, it is not a valid reason.
    You therefor do not support "Abortion on demand" as it is practiced in the US

    ---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's like being in favor of free speech but not necessarily approving of all uses of free speech - you can support the right to racist speech and yet disapprove of racist speech.

    Since when did abortions become a human right?

    According to the Law of Biogenesis humans produce other humans -- not fetuses (a term referring to a deveopmental stage all mamals go thorugh). A term incorrectly used, to describe all humans developing in-utero, by the pro-abortion side to de-humanize the targets of abortion whose deaths are the result of a successful "procedure".

    On the genetic level science now knows conclusively that very shortly after conception, when cells begin to grow and divide and metabolize energy, another separate human life exists with its own unique DNA.

    The only difference between a human 72 hours after conception and you and I are its:

    Size
    Level of development
    Need for a special environment
    Dependency on others

    Those are the only differences. On a purely ethical scale it is abhorant that society can justify one human killing another based solely on those criteria.

    If one argues in favor of the right of the ''mother" to kill her offspring in utero whenever she wants under any and all circumstances -- then why limit it just to the uterus? What difference does a couple inches make ethically? What difference is there between a society that permits abortions on demand and another society who practices infanticide?

    These questions are posed strictly on an ethical basis -- not legal. Often laws have little basis in ethics. EG: Jim Crowe laws
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Seriously, could you imagine how more destroyed our planet would be if there had never been any abortions since the beginning of Mankind? It's hard enough trying to sustain the 6+ billion on this planet as it is. With no abortions, we'd undeniably have over a billion or so more people to use up our precious resources. I can't imagine God would instruct us to be fruitful and multiply on this incredibly small planet that is 2/3 ocean. Actually, you can bet the house that when overpopulation does reach its tipping point (if it hasn't already), Mother Nature will find a way to kill off hundreds of millions of people. Can you say H1N1? Overpopulation is all the more reason to be pro-choice.

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Since when did abortions become a human right?
    It's been recognized as a constitutional right in the USA since Roe vs. Wade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    The only difference between a human 72 hours after conception and you and I are its:

    Size
    Level of development
    Need for a special environment
    Dependency on others
    And let's not pretend that those are minor differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    If one argues in favor of the right of the ''mother" to kill her offspring in utero whenever she wants under any and all circumstances -- then why limit it just to the uterus? What difference does a couple inches make ethically? What difference is there between a society that permits abortions on demand and another society who practices infanticide?
    1. A fetus in the early stages of development is different than a born child.
    2. Killing a born child has nothing to do with the right to medical privacy.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Myth View Post
    Seriously, could you imagine how more destroyed our planet would be if there had never been any abortions since the beginning of Mankind? It's hard enough trying to sustain the 6+ billion on this planet as it is. With no abortions, we'd undeniably have over a billion or so more people to use up our precious resources.
    Well then using this logic :

    Killing of humans on a massive scale is good.

    How is this ethical? Please support...and if it is ethical -- why don't we just kill more humans and solve more of the world's problems?

    ---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's been recognized as a constitutional right in the USA since Roe vs. Wade.
    Please refrain from arguing legalities in a specific country. We have an international group here and laws vary.The use of the word "legal" in the OP was meant as a general term. As in "Why should society sanction?" So let's please keep specific legal aspects out of the discussion

    ---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. A fetus in the early stages of development is different than a born child.
    2. Killing a born child has nothing to do with the right to medical privacy.
    Please use the scientific definition of the word "fetus" and support your statement as it relates to: Size; level of development; Need for a special environment; and dependency on others.

    As you stated "these are no small things" this should be quite easy for you, yes? In fact please spell out exactly when it is and is not ethical to kill a human based on the human's size, level of development, need for a special environment, and dependency on others and explain why.

    Also what about the other levels of development: At what stage it is not OK to kill a developing human and why? Is it ethical to kill humans with developmental disorders? How about humans in nursing homes? What about premature babies needing incubators? When is it OK to kill a human based on those four elements, where do you draw the line and why? Please focus on biological ethics rather than legal aspects.

    And in regards to medical privacy that is not an issue here.
    Last edited by Spartacus; September 14th, 2009 at 06:59 PM.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Please refrain from arguing legalities in a specific country. We have an international group here and laws vary.The use of the word "legal" in the OP was meant as a general term. As in "Why should society sanction?" So let's please keep specific legal aspects out of the discussion
    If you don't want legal answers, then don't ask questions that require one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Please use the scientific definition of the word "fetus" and support your statement as it relates to: Size; level of development; Need for a special environment; and dependency on others.
    No. I will assume you already know what "fetus" means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    As you stated "these are no small things" this should be quite easy for you, yes? In fact please spell out exactly when it is and is not ethical to kill a human based on the human's size, level of development, need for a special environment, and dependency on others and explain why.
    No. If you want to challenge my argument by pointing out how I am wrong, do so.

    Asking me to give greater detail of my argument is not rebutting my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Also what about the other levels of development: At what stage it is not OK to kill a developing human and why? Is it ethical to kill humans with developmental disorders? How about humans in nursing homes? What about premature babies needing incubators?


    The answer is "No" to all. And I believe I speak for pro-choicers in general with that answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    When is it OK to kill a human based on those four elements, where do you draw the line and why? Please focus on biological ethics rather than legal aspects.
    I'm sorry, but again, just asking me more questions does not challenge my previous answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    And in regards to medical privacy that is not an issue here.
    Considering that is one of the primary reason I support abortion rights, it certainly is. And I don't mean what the law says. I agree with the concept of medical privacy and support the right to abortion because I agree with that concept.

    Just like one might support the right to bear arms because they believe in the concept of self-defense, regardless of what the law says.

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Considering that is one of the primary reason I support abortion rights, it certainly is. And I don't mean what the law says. I agree with the concept of medical privacy and support the right to abortion because I agree with that concept.

    .
    I am asking because my position -- Abortion is wrong except when the life of the mother is in danger -- is pretty clear. It requires no clarification.

    It is you who want to qaulify things, and in fact stated this is would be easy as the four conditions I stated you stated "let's no pretend those are small differences". SO it not at all unfair I ask you to explain this.

    In fairness you need to state exactly where, how and why you qualify as you do. Otherwise we do not know your exact position. For example -- you support the lawful killing of fetuses -- what about all the other development stages?

    Simply refusing to clearly state your position is not an argument.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    It is you who want to qaulify things, and in fact stated this is would be easy as the four conditions I stated you stated "let's no pretend those are small differences". SO it not at all unfair I ask you to explain this.
    Again, asking me a question is not challenging my statement. I said the differences are not small. If you are challenging that, then it is your position that they are small and you need to make such an argument.

    But clearly we both know the difference between a fetus and a born person and how big and small the differences really are is a matter of opinion so I really see no way to support or challenge that. How "big" the difference is is pretty much a matter of opinion.

    But the law clearly recognizes a significant difference between a fetus and a born person and I generally agree that there is a difference and therefore the two are to be treated differently under the law.



    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    In fairness you need to state exactly where, how and why you qualify as you do. Otherwise we do not know your exact position. For example -- you support the lawful killing of fetuses -- what about all the other development stages?

    Simply refusing to clearly state your position is not an argument.
    Then let me say that I generally support the laws as they are in US with fairly easy access to abortion during the early stages of a pregnancy and more severe restrictions later during the pregnancy.

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Where did all that come from? What part of WhoamI's post actually referred to his religious affiliation?
    Did you not see his comment? He seems to suggest it wouldnt be such a bad thing to abort if the child was gay.
    I assume he wouldn't though, but since he against homosexuality I merely thought he might brainwash the child into being straight.

    That is not to say he would, of course.

    ---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    They should not live a lifestyle that they are ashamed of then.
    Gay people are not ashamed to be gay. They are afraid of being attacked and vilified for being themselves. Something you can never understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    Wow...this is EXACTLY what I said, yet, when I said it, it was pathetic....
    Except you didn't say it. You said it 'wouldn't be such a bad thing', almost as if you'd prefer it.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    Lifer is just such an evil term to you huh? Being against the murder of innocent babies is just so barbaric. That is truly pathetic. If the woman chooses to violate the law (assuming it was illegal) then she must accept the potential consequences.It any rate, it is a choice that she is making of her own free will. Innocent babies do not have that choice. But a Lib of your degree thinks it is perfectly acceptable give partial birth to a baby and then ram a giant needle into its brain to kill it.
    You have some proof that woman choose to have elective late term abortions?

    Do your research and you'll find that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks.

    I also think you forgot that partial birth abortion is illegal in the states.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    What about the baby? Has he/she no choice?
    What baby? It's a fetus. How about we use the correct terms here?

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    You know what I truly find the most sickening about Liberalism?...
    You know what I find most sickening about conservatism? The fact that they dont give a damn if women died from illegal abortions.
    The fact that many of them seem to think that every woman who has an abortion is a slut and should have kept her legs shut.
    The fact that they appear to think sex is wrong unless it's within marriage.
    The fact they support abstinance education even though it's been shown not to work time and time again.
    The fact they would like to use a womans body as a incubator and force her to have a baby she doesn't want.
    The fact they seem to think most women willing go and have an abortion.
    The fact they seem to think that women opt to have their childs brains sucked out with a tube.
    The fact they think that all aborted babies look just like minature human beings and not the blobs of cells that are actually aborted.
    The fact they see nothing wrong with using the woman as a slave.
    The fact they insist that women give their babies up for adoption even though there are not enough couples waiting to adopt.
    The fact they want women to give their babies up for adoption but haven't contributed to the problem and adopted a child themselves.
    The fact they ignore all the excuses as to why women abort, but think the exact same excuses are just fine when they try to justify their reasons for not adopting.
    The fact they are opposed to abortion, but also for welfare for single mothers.
    The fact they want these women arrested for having an abortion but are yet to come up with an idea as to how you can prove a woman has actually had one.
    The fact they are perfectly fine with murdering innocent people in war but are opposed to the removal of a non sentient life form hiding in a womans uterus.



    Keep in mind that 'they' means 'many'. Not all. But many.

    There are so many problems with conservatives its not funny.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  10. #30
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Gay people are not ashamed to be gay. They are afraid of being attacked and vilified for being themselves. Something you can never understand.
    Sorry... there are lots of reasons that people are "vilified for being themselves," and not all of them have to do with being gay. You have no way of knowing whether another person is capable of understanding that, or whether they might have even gone through it themselves.

    And the tirade you went on is something I find objectionable. The whole thing represents a giant ad hominem attack on what you perceive conservatives to be. I think that you are grossly misrepresenting the majority of conservatives and setting up a straw man by focusing on the most extreme elements of the conservative ideology. Also, you are confusing religious fundamentalism and "pro-life" arguments for conservative political philosophy, which are not synonymous or even strongly correlated. Making a weak disclaimer like "I only mean 'most' not 'all' conservatives" does not exempt you from the requirements of support or proof for claims, most of which I find totally unfounded. The "facts" you have presented are nothing of the kind, and I intend to demonstrate them for the blatant ad hominems that they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    You know what I find most sickening about conservatism? The fact that they dont give a damn if women died from illegal abortions.
    I argue that most conservatives would prefer that the government stayed out of people's personal lives, and that they certainly do care whether someone dies from a medical procedure performed by an unqualified person with substandard equipment. You can't prove that this is a view held by "most" conservatives, and it is an ad hominem attack because it does not address the argument it attempts to rebut. Support this or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact that many of them seem to think that every woman who has an abortion is a slut and should have kept her legs shut.
    Ad hominem. I argue that the majority of conservatives would prefer that people be responsible about their reproductive choices and not have more babies than they can afford to support. This does *not* mean that anyone who has an abortion is a slut, and while a few people may have claimed it, it's by no means the majority opinion. Even if they *did* believe that were true, it wouldn't impact the force of their argument. Support this or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact that they appear to think sex is wrong unless it's within marriage.
    Not all conservatives are Christian or even theist. In fact I argue that many conservatives would rather see a person who has an active sex life but is responsible about their sexuality and reproductive choices than someone who is married and has 10 kids they can't support, thus forcing the conservatives who actually work for a living to pay for those kids. This is ad hominem because you're using this moral choice as an invalid rebuttal to the "pro life" position that abortion is wrong by attempting to discredit the interlocutor instead of attacking the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they support abstinance education even though it's been shown not to work time and time again.
    Abstinence education by itself is not effective, but that's also a "knock-on" effect of the mass media and the increasing promiscuity in Western society. Adding abstinence education to a comprehensive sex education program should be in no way objectionable to any reasonable person who believes that a 15 year old is not well-equipped to have and raise a child independently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they would like to use a womans body as a incubator and force her to have a baby she doesn't want.
    Ad hominem. Not all conservatives are "pro-life," and most pro-life people would rather a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant be responsible about her birth control choices or to refrain from having sex until she does want to be a parent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they seem to think most women willing go and have an abortion.
    People don't have abortions unwillingly... it's against the law. How else could an abortion happen, except by the woman's consent? I'm not being obtuse... I realize that you're talking about "wanting" to have one... obviously it's not the first choice for most people. But what does this have to do with anything, anyway? Ad hominem on the grounds that a) you can't prove it and b) even if it's true, it doesn't detract from the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they seem to think that women opt to have their childs brains sucked out with a tube.
    The fact they think that all aborted babies look just like minature human beings and not the blobs of cells that are actually aborted.
    I argue that most conservatives who have a position on abortion are much better educated on the issue than you give them credit for. Also, having actually *watched* the procedure done just last week, I can tell you that it is a pretty grizly experience, with all the sucking and the like, and it pretty much does amount to having the baby sucked out through a tube. Early on in a pregnancy, no... a fetus *doesn't* look like a "miniature human being" but not all abortions are carried out before the first trimester is done.

    Also, this has nothing to do with the validity of the argument for or against abortion. Ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they see nothing wrong with using the woman as a slave.
    Ad hominem, and blatantly false. I have never known a conservative - by your definition or otherwise - who advocates slavery of any sort for people, regardless of sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they want women to give their babies up for adoption but haven't contributed to the problem and adopted a child themselves.
    Ad hominem tu quoque. Couples who are capable of having children of their own have no need to adopt children that they did not create. Many conservatives - both of your definition and the real one - foster children who have been given up to the state so that those children will have a stable home to grow up in, without adopting them. My aunt and uncle, who raised 4 kids of their own, did this for several children over the years, and many of them have become close friends of the family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they ignore all the excuses as to why women abort, but think the exact same excuses are just fine when they try to justify their reasons for not adopting.
    Ad hominem tu quoque. I haven't seen any respectable conservatie who has a modicum of sense and oratory skill just ignore an argument which was made on valid premises. At worst, they had what they erroneously believed to be a correct rebuttal, but usually, the case comes down to an irreconcilable difference in moral values, which can't be successfully defended or attacked in a forum of this sort. What's more, conservatives of any stripe are no more or less inclined than liberals are to ignoring the other side's points in favor of shouting an ideology louder than the other person. Finally, I haven't seen anyone use the same argument that they've ignored to support their own claims about something related recently. Support or retract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they are opposed to abortion, but also for welfare for single mothers.
    Not all conservaties are pro-life, but almost all conservatives *are* against big government spending and "forced charity" for people that have done nothing to deserve it. My mother raised triplets by herself and worked three jobs to do it. It *can* be done, and anyone who says it can't is not working hard enough. Welfare is completely irrelevant to the abortion argument, especially when put into the context of the rest of the majority conservative viewpoint, which espouses personal responsiblity for one's actions and stresses contribution to society as the basis of deciding what one is entitled to receive from that society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they want these women arrested for having an abortion but are yet to come up with an idea as to how you can prove a woman has actually had one.
    Even pro-life conservatives don't share this opinion as a majority. Support or retract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja
    The fact they are perfectly fine with murdering innocent people in war but are opposed to the removal of a non sentient life form hiding in a womans uterus.
    Ad hominem. Support for a war does not have anything to do with the strength of an argument regarding abortion.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    In my personal view woman should have right to abort for any reason it may be.Mistake may be excused.As I know and read
    motherhood is a sacred process and almost ladies of the world
    feel proud to be mother.Hence someone aborting means there is
    sufficient reason for her and she is the right judge for the process
    and should have liberty to do so.

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post

    The only difference between a human 72 hours after conception and you and I are its:

    Size
    Level of development
    Need for a special environment
    Dependency on others

    Those are the only differences.
    And these are HUGE differences - especially in the case of #2 - level of development.

    At 3-5 days a fetus consists of about 70 to 150 undifferentiated cells called a blastocyst. Are you saying that this clump of cells enjoys the same level of rights and protections of a new born infant? Or even an in utero fetus capable of surviving outside the womb? I'm flabbergasted that someone thinks that a blob of cells is a human being. Yes - those cells have the potential to develop into a new hominid life form - but so does every other cell in your body. Paraphrasing Sam Harris - you are committing a holocaust of potential life each time you scratch your nose.
    *zip*

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    And these are HUGE differences - especially in the case of #2 - level of development.

    At 3-5 days a fetus consists of about 70 to 150 undifferentiated cells called a blastocyst. Are you saying that this clump of cells enjoys the same level of rights and protections of a new born infant? Or even an in utero fetus capable of surviving outside the womb? I'm flabbergasted that someone thinks that a blob of cells is a human being. Yes - those cells have the potential to develop into a new hominid life form - but so does every other cell in your body. Paraphrasing Sam Harris - you are committing a holocaust of potential life each time you scratch your nose.
    No, not every cell has the potential to become a new human. The blastocyst is genetically distinct from its mother and father. And to my knowledge, inalienable rights are not conditioned on criteria related to development, age, need for a special environment, or dependency.

    Let me put it a different way:

    I will begin removing cells from your body and destroying them. Assume that at every point at which your mass of cells is intact, you could regenerate your cells and be just as you were.

    I remove one cell at a time, continuing until your 'body' now consists of a single cell. By your argument, destroying this last cell is no different than destroying the first cell.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Did you not see his comment? He seems to suggest it wouldnt be such a bad thing to abort if the child was gay.
    Wrong, that is not exactly what he was trying to say from what I read of his post. My understanding of his post was if the reason to about just for the hell of it is fine, then the reason to abort because of the possibility of being gay should also be fine. Abortion out of convenience or as a method of birthcontrol is no more reasonable then aborting to prevent the couple having a homosexual child...

    I assume he wouldn't though, but since he against homosexuality I merely thought he might brainwash the child into being straight.

    That is not to say he would, of course.
    What does being against homosexuality and brainwashing the child have to do with abortion?

    Except you didn't say it. You said it 'wouldn't be such a bad thing', almost as if you'd prefer it.
    I think you read to much into the post


    You have some proof that woman choose to have elective late term abortions?
    Are you denying elective late term abortion does not happen?
    You know what I find most sickening about conservatism? The fact that they dont give a damn if women died from illegal abortions.
    Support for this?

    The fact that many of them seem to think that every woman who has an abortion is a slut and should have kept her legs shut.
    Support?
    The fact that they appear to think sex is wrong unless it's within marriage.
    Support?
    The fact they support abstinance education even though it's been shown not to work time and time again.
    Support?
    The fact they would like to use a womans body as a incubator and force her to have a baby she doesn't want.
    Support?
    The fact they seem to think most women willing go and have an abortion.
    The fact they seem to think that women opt to have their childs brains sucked out with a tube.
    Support? Support?
    The fact they think that all aborted babies look just like minature human beings and not the blobs of cells that are actually aborted.
    Support?
    The fact they see nothing wrong with using the woman as a slave.
    The fact they insist that women give their babies up for adoption even though there are not enough couples waiting to adopt.
    The fact they want women to give their babies up for adoption but haven't contributed to the problem and adopted a child themselves.
    The fact they ignore all the excuses as to why women abort, but think the exact same excuses are just fine when they try to justify their reasons for not adopting.
    The fact they are opposed to abortion, but also for welfare for single mothers.
    The fact they want these women arrested for having an abortion but are yet to come up with an idea as to how you can prove a woman has actually had one.
    The fact they are perfectly fine with murdering innocent people in war but are opposed to the removal of a non sentient life form hiding in a womans uterus.
    Bunch of supports?


    Keep in mind that 'they' means 'many'. Not all. But many.

    There are so many problems with conservatives its not funny.
    Care to support that 'many' conservative have many problems and liberals don't?
    Care to support that what I asked support for is limited to conservatives and not liberals as well?
    Last edited by Just Me; September 15th, 2009 at 08:25 AM.
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Also, does anyone really think that destroying that blastocyst without the consent of the mother or father is exactly the same as, say, clipping their nails or picking their nose without their consent? If these cells are no more meaningful than any other cells in her body, mustn't that necessarily be the case?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    And let's not pretend that those are minor differences.


    This is your exact quote Mican.

    Yet you offer no explanation and continue to refuse define your position precisely. Only complaining when questioned as to what your actual position is. This is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

    ---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, asking me a question is not challenging my statement. I said the differences are not small.
    Given your contradicting statements is it any wonder one asks you clearly state your position?

    For those just joining us: The root of Mican's now contradicting statements is my statement that the only difference between "Born humans" and those who are yet-to-born are:

    Size
    Level of Development
    Need for a special Environment
    Dependency on others.

    First Mican claims these are "no small differneces." and then later Mican claimed these are "not small"

    Mican is complaining about my repeated questions and requests to clearly state what his position is regarding the ethics or abortion, while asking him to address the subject of abortion rather than technical legal points associated with it..


    ---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then let me say that I generally support the laws as they are in US with fairly easy access to abortion during the early stages of a pregnancy and more severe restrictions later during the pregnancy.
    This is incorrect. Abortions can be obtained in the US until the actual birth. In Illinois it was for a time, until federal law corrected it, a legal requirement that if a child was born alive as the result of a late term abortion -- that child was to be allowed to die with not even care given to make the human comfortable.

    Also -- why do you make a distinction between early and late-term abortions?

    In your opinion -- when precisely is a human developed enough to have the right to not be killed? Why?

    ---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    And these are HUGE differences - especially in the case of #2 - level of development.

    At 3-5 days a fetus consists of about 70 to 150 undifferentiated cells called a blastocyst. Are you saying that this clump of cells enjoys the same level of rights and protections of a new born infant? Or even an in utero fetus capable of surviving outside the womb? I'm flabbergasted that someone thinks that a blob of cells is a human being. Yes - those cells have the potential to develop into a new hominid life form - but so does every other cell in your body. Paraphrasing Sam Harris - you are committing a holocaust of potential life each time you scratch your nose.
    You used the phrase human Being -- not I.
    Rather I stuck with the biologically correct descriptive word -- HUMAN.

    A Blastocyst is human and it is a separate human life. With DNA demonstrating it is not just a part of the mother's body. It meets the scientific definitions of a life used for every other mamal. This is true scientifically.

    Even at its most basic level all humans should have the right not to be killed. To arbitrarily pick and choose at which point a human life has the basic right not to be killed is just that -- arbitrary -- and is not based on science and is ethically flawed.



    And so I pose the same question to you:

    When is a human developed enough to have the right not be killed?


    And by the way -- comparing a developing human to human waste products is ludicrous, patently false, and requires someone to be a complete idiot where biology is concerned to believe such a statement. Human waste -- if left to its natural course -- does not develop into a fully-functioning human being.

    Hope this was not your view of the reproduction process.


    AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...

    Here we see why any positions on abortion, other than the "pro-life" stance: That abortions, except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is in danger, are unethical, wrong and intellectually lack integrity.

    Unless of course you think you sprung from a booger.

    For society to sanction abortions, to allow them at will, is categorically unethical. It is unethical because it requires society to choose an arbitrary point in the human life cycle and state: "Here. at this point a human has the right not be killed". Rather than simply stating all humans have this right; and using scientifically proven facts to determine when human life exists -- namely when genetically unique human cells begin to grow and divide and metabolize energy shortly after conception. This is the criteria scientists use to determine when a separate life exists. (That is why there is debate as to whether or not virsuses qualify as "life")

    [B]Positions based on arbitrary opinions, rather than science, for determining when human life exists and has value; and the basic right not to be killed are unethical: because arbitrary points are subjective rather than objective and have a way of moving.[/B]
    Last edited by Spartacus; September 15th, 2009 at 08:52 AM.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  17. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    This is your exact quote Mican.

    Yet you offer no explanation and continue to refuse define your position precisely. Only complaining when questioned as to what your actual position is. This is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
    And you refuse to offer any rebuttal of my position and apparently think that just asking me questions is some kind of rebuttal. Talk about lazy.

    Really, what part of "not small" (which means "big") don't you get?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Given your contradicting statements is it any wonder one asks you clearly state your position?

    [I]For those just joining us: The root of Mican's now contradicting statements is my statement that the only difference between "Born humans" and those who are yet-to-born are:

    Size
    Level of Development
    Need for a special Environment
    Dependency on others.

    First Mican claims these are "no small differneces." and then later Mican claimed these are "not small"
    When I claim that these are "no small differences", it means that they are "not small." They mean the exact same thing!

    So your "contradiction" claim is either an issue of reading comprehension difficulty or intellectual dishonesty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Mican is complaining about my repeated questions and requests to clearly state what his position is regarding the ethics or abortion, while asking him to address the subject of abortion rather than technical legal points associated with it.
    So we're addressing everyone else? Kinda lame (actually incredibly lame) but I'll play along.

    Hey everyone! Sparty apparently does not understand these simple statements I've been making and instead of rebutting them he keeps asking me to clarify them as if he actually doesn't understand what I'm saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    This is incorrect. Abortions can be obtained in the US until the actual birth. In Illinois it was for a time, until federal law corrected it, a legal requirement that if a child was born alive as the result of a late term abortion -- that child was to be allowed to die with not even care given to make the human comfortable.
    No, I'm completely correct. It is uniformly harder to get a legal abortion in the later stages than in the early stages of a pregnancy. Currently the debate over late-term abortion is whether the health of the mother is adequate criteria to allow an abortion. In the early stages of a pregnancy, such issues are irrelevant - no justification is needed to legally obtain an abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Also -- why do you make a distinction between early and late-term abortions?
    Because the fetus is more developed in the later stages of pregnancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    [B]In your opinion -- when precisely is a human developed enough to have the right to not be killed? Why?
    I've already answered this. I said I support the laws as they are and the laws state when a fetus can be aborted.

    You have yet to provide any kind of rebuttal to my response. You either ask questions or complain that I don't answer your questions or incorrectly state that my answers contradict each other.

    Until you have an actual rebuttal, don't bother responding to me.

  18. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    The surgery itself has a risk that goes with it. All surgerys have risks.. But those risks do not carry a 100% chance of happening..
    I never claimed all risks will lead to a worst case scenario. Yet, doctors take an oath to do no harm and performing unnecessary surgeries puts that oath in jeopardy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Care to support that doctors are being forced to perform abortions?
    I shouldn't have claimed this. I am at work... lol.
    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32347
    "President Obama quietly begun the process of overturning regulations that protect doctors and hospitals from being forced to perform or refer abortions."
    In Mexico, such a right for doctors has been removed. In Canada, it is being pushed. While Bush signed into law a bill allowing for doctors to be conscientious objectors, it is being fought
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...r=U.S._4371761
    Furthermore, doctors who merely oppose most forms of abortion, may not be protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    I agree.. That's why patients as well as visitors have to follow hospital policies..
    Except hospitals, if they accept federal funding, cannot refuse to perform abortions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    This includes all operations? Even operations on hermaphrodites?
    You'd have to explain the procedure to me. If it surgery which does not correct some physical or mental problem, then it would be of questionable ethics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    There is a chance of other health risks from abortions. What is the % of this happening though?
    You're missing the point. ALL surgeries carry risks. Doctors who perform unnecessary surgeries are pushing the ethical envelope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    That's like saying it is unethical for me to ask someone to get in their car and bring me something because them getting into a vehicle can lead to them having a car accident.
    No. Its not like that at all. It'd be like you demanding someone drive 100 mph in a school zone simply because you cannot stand being around children. Maybe you'll hit some kid crossing the street. Maybe you won't. Maybe your friend will flip the care, maybe not. Its unethical because you are asking someone to do something inherently dangerous for no reason other than your own comfort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Yes, the mother is considered a person. That's why as with all surgeries the mother would sign giving them permission, basically signing a waver.
    How does that change the doctor's oath to not do harm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Then I guess Refractive surgery is unethical and tubal ligation is unethical, huh?
    An argument can be made. Certainly. I am not making it here as we are solely discussing abortions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    So I guess these doctors who perform elective c-sections, tubal ligations, refractive surgeries are all breaking their oath..
    That was the point of the article I linked. Doctors performing elective c-sections may be acting unethically precisely because they may be undermining the oath they took.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Yes, there's risks that go along with surgeries...
    Either elective surgeries including plastic surgery causes the doctor to break their oath or they don't..
    The question is whether abortions, when done electively, are ethical. Is it ethical for a doctor to perform surgery to remove a part of someone which is 100% healthy and normal? Your claim is that their oath is unimportant. The mother's interests outweigh any oath the doctor has taken. My argument is that doctors who perform elective abortions act unethically because they break the very simple oath, "do no harm."
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've already answered this. I said I support the laws as they are and the laws state when a fetus can be aborted.
    yes at any time.

    A simple Google search shows where one get late term abortions in the US. It is not harder -- as in more difficult to obtain -- rather more advanced medical facilities are required. That is all.

    Completely legal.

    http://www.gracemedicalcare.com/?gcl...FRwhDQodjSAWiA

    So your premise that the US has laws to prevent third tri-mester abortions is false.

    And yet you refuse to state exactly when a human is developed enough to not be killed?

    It is a simple questions requiring a simple answer.

    Yet you refuse to give one based on ethics rather than merely laws -- laws which you seem to not fully comprehend.

    and BTW -- you got me on the semantics issue -- a hazard of posting between doing e-mails in three languages. My apologies.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    No, not every cell has the potential to become a new human. The blastocyst is genetically distinct from its mother and father. And to my knowledge, inalienable rights are not conditioned on criteria related to development, age, need for a special environment, or dependency.
    Yes - all cells have the potential to create new life...ever hear of cloning?
    Your point about the genetic differences in a blastocyst is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Let me put it a different way:

    I will begin removing cells from your body and destroying them. Assume that at every point at which your mass of cells is intact, you could regenerate your cells and be just as you were.

    I remove one cell at a time, continuing until your 'body' now consists of a single cell. By your argument, destroying this last cell is no different than destroying the first cell.
    What is your point? I stated that all cells have the potential to be used in the creation of a new life. Your statement is a non-sequitur.
    *zip*

 

 
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. aborting "gay" fetuses
    By Spartacus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: March 16th, 2011, 03:55 AM
  2. Is there a rational reason to believe?
    By Allocutus in forum Religion
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 6th, 2010, 07:25 AM
  3. Reasons to believe
    By Blood Lull in forum Religion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2010, 09:53 PM
  4. Cognitive Psychology Part I: Good Reasons to be Angry
    By Zorak in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2009, 08:57 PM
  5. 33 Reasons to boot Bush.
    By Slipnish in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •