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 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11
Results 201 to 218 of 218
  1. #201
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Our difference of opinion is that you think the solution is based upon changing minds. That is not the argument.
    Then what is the argument? As far as I know, the only way to get rid of a controversy between two opposing groups is to either get one side to change its mind or for both sides to not care so much for their respective positions (as in they still disagree but not as strongly thus decreasing controversy).

    You can't just say "it will work" without supporting HOW it will work. Likewise your argument has been all along that this is better handled at the state level so you not only have to support that it will work but likewise support that it will work more effectively if done by the state.

    At this point, I will not respond to any further claims about an effective way to decrease the controversy until you support your assertion. If you can't or won't then your argument dies for lack of support.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It’s not about changing positions or changing minds; it’s about objectively educating, informing and synthesizing 40 years of abortion without the hype to level the playing field.
    And how will this lessen the controversy?

    I'm not saying that people receiving information is not a good thing, but you are claiming that it will lessen the controversy and you have not explained how this will happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What this supports is that abortion is murder, justified murder. The general public may not be comfortable with that, but honesty sometimes allows us to do a reality check.
    As far as I'm concerned you are just trucking out pro-life "hype", not giving a reality check. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal and therefore does not qualify it as murder.

    If you are just pointing out that a fetus is killed during abortion, I can guarantee that everyone already knows that so no reality check is needed as far as that is concerned.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If we agree that universities work to educate and inform students to make better and wiser choices, then such an abortion educational campaign has promise.
    In what way? Again, if you are asserting that this will lessen the controversy, you have yet to support this.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    From the state level, you can fundraise and get support from people in the state where the controversy exists. Most people are more willing to contribute financially to a local cause that affects their community
    Then why do national organizations generally collect more money?


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What such an educational campaign can do is pretty much what a good university does. It provides a broader base of objective information and knowledge to an issue. The reason information is power in a free society is because it gives us the choice to step outside of the emotional, sometimes irrational process of our thinking patterns. Why? Because once we have a certain amount of objective knowledge, a rational person will not be driven by emotional reactions, but instead they will work from a logical and reasonable base of facts they have learned. When we’re not driven and controlled by emotional reaction, what was controversial to us before, may not be as emotionally charged and controversial because we have a factual knowledge base to draw from in order to form our views.
    But both sides already know the fact that abortion kills a fetus and likewise know that banning abortion will prohibit a woman from legally obtaining an abortion and various sides have strong opinions on which of these two things is the "greater evil". You are apparently forwarding that there are unknown facts that if people knew, would lessen the controversy.

    Well, what are those facts?

    I understand that many people do not have all of the information about pregnancy and abortion, but the issue is whether people are lacking relevant facts, that if they did know, would make a difference. It is the basis of your argument that such facts exist. And if that is your position you need to support this by means such as telling me what those facts are.

    And I'm not asking for a list of things people don't know. I'm asking for at least one example of something that people might learn that could reasonably be expected to lessen the controversy.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Give me something realistic. Legally, killing born babies in America is not realistic or probable.
    So something has to be realistic before you can opine on whether it's morally correct or not? That makes no sense.

    The point is if one thinks that the fetus deserves the same legal rights and protections as a born baby, then one, for consistencies sake, has to support the law treating both equally.

    So I'm asking you if you believe that born babies should be treated as you are arguing that we should treat fetuses, which is allow the states to decide if they should be killed?

    So to reframe the question, do you believe that born babies should be legally treated the same as you advocate we treat fetuses?


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It is a form of justified legal murder, but not for the innocent and defendless.
    "Legalized murder" is a contradiction in terms, not to mention hype.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    You said: “You prove to me that abortion is murder.” Is a dead fully formed aborted baby not proof?
    No, it's not. Again, if it's not illegal, it's not murder. So if fetus did not die due to an unlawful act, it was not murdered.

    I find it strange that you first advocate eliminating hype and then go around calling abortion "murder".

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So does that mean you consider that abortion is murder after 24 weeks if the unborn is simply not wanted? There q43 about16,000 late term abortions per year.
    Again, if it's legal it's not murder. But in my personal moral opinion, it is not appropriate to have a late term abortion without a good reason (such as the health concerns or rape or incest). So I likewise cannot make any moral judgments on the late-term abortions that do occur without knowing more details. For all I know, most or all of them were for what I would consider acceptable reasons.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Definition of addiction:” the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming,”

    Women depend on it in order to get rid of an unwanted child.
    And I work in order to get a paycheck so am I "work addicted"?

    The fact is women, in most if not all cases, don't have abortions out of a psychological habit so it does not qualify as an addiction. If you show me a case where a woman was psychologically addicted to the sensation of having an abortion and therefore went out and continuously got pregnant just she could regularly have abortions, then I would say it's an abortion addiction. And for all I know such people exist, but they would certainly be a rare case and therefore not a valid descriptor of the general state of abortion.

    And the fact that the term "abortion addiction" is regularly bandied about does not mean that it's a valid term.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What protected the fetus from being aborted for over a 100 years in America?
    Laws created at governmental levels lower than the federal.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Nor was it enacted through a democratic process. When it came time to nullifing it, there was consensus in America, especially in the North where the higher populations existed on removing the Jim Crow laws because they were not defensible and were unconstitutional.
    But what removed the laws were the actions of the Supreme Court. Do you disagree with it happening this way (keeping in mind that any other method would have been much slower)?



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What is not legally defensible in the law will get attacked and eventually struck down.
    I have only concede that attacks can be made on Roe. I never conceded that it cannot be legally defended.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The organization [ Planned Parenthood also opposes laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions
    Which is a far cry from being against women having the choice of viewing an ultrasound of the fetus. I assume that if a woman asks the doctor to perform an ultrasound so she can see the fetus, PP has no objections whatsoever. So your statement that PP opposes a woman's choice to view an ultrasound is incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    No, there is ignorance on both sides. If this were not so, then we would see reputable academic evidence (studies, polls, and just even one’s circle of friends) that shows the general public is objectively informed of the knowledge and facts of what I have posted above, instead of just the slogans.
    But the position that either side or both sides are so ignorant that a certain amount of education will significantly decrease the controversy is completely unsupported.

    Again, the only way (as far as I know) to decrease controversy is for one side to win over the other (changing minds) or for people to become less passionate in their positions. And you have not supported that either of things things would significantly happen or told me of another way that controversy would be lessened.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Sure, and for the states that mandate it, all a women needs to do if she doesn’t want to view it is close her eyes.
    But there's no good reason to mandate that she have the ultrasound in the first place. Assuming THAT is what PP are objecting to, they are correct.

    There is a difference between mandating and choosing.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    "Right to know laws” have been enacted in about 21 states. They include basic relevant, common-sense information for women like:

    Planned Parent hood has opposed (and lost most cases) almost every state that has tried to pass “right to know” laws making sure women are well informed.
    But you have not established that they are opposing the laws because of the relevant information as opposed to things such as mandatory ultrasound and waiting periods (which they should object to).

    As far as your link goes, again, I'm only accepting links from unbiased sources. The Southern Party of Georgia clearly has a pro-life bias.

    Example:

    "Life Chain Georgia, Sunday Oct 1

    All across the nation life chains will be built by Christians who will be making a visual solidarity statement to their communities that abortion is grievously wrong and that these Christians wish to support a ?Culture of Life? that includes respect for the life of the unborn. The Life Chain hour is from 2:30pm to 3:30pm, Sunday October 1. Life Chain is a time for prayerful self-analysis, repentance, and serious commitment to helping end abortion in our nation.
    "

    http://spofga.org/wrtk/pro_life.phtml




    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I provided this link in my last post. Here is it again.
    A link by itself does not count as support. You have to provide a quote from the source backing up what you are saying. Just giving me a link and asking me to look up the relevant information is an actual violation of the rules at ODN (it's called "linkwarz")


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    This outline shows the U.S. states that have ultrasound laws and consent laws in place. States that don’t have such laws, abortion clinics in those states are not mandated to inform women of relevant ‘right to know’ information.
    And if "right to know" laws include waiting periods and forced ultrasounds then I likewise have a problem with them.

    If it's nothing other than the relevant information that a woman should have to make the best decision for herself, then I support such laws.
    Last edited by mican333; March 30th, 2011 at 08:04 AM.

  2. #202
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Then what is the argument? As far as I know, the only way to get rid of a controversy between two opposing groups is to either get one side to change its mind or for both sides to not care so much for their respective positions (as in they still disagree but not as strongly thus decreasing controversy). You can't just say "it will work" without supporting HOW it will work.
    Let's recap:

    1. You asked me how could the abortion controversy be minimized if the abortion issue was sent back to the states. It won't go away, but it can certainly not be as divisive.
    2. I responded by saying one way to help minimize the controversy in some states would be if some states chose to launch a major objective and educational program on abortion, beyond the slogans and the hype.
    3. You want support of how a comprehensive, objective educational televised campaign can minimize the abortion controversy.
    4. So, let's break this down:


    First let's look at the definition of "controversy": "a dispute about contentious topic: disagreement on a contentious topic, strongly felt or expressed by all those concerned, or an instance of this."

    Now let's dig into what the general public in America is contentious about regarding the abortion issue.

    Is the general public contentious about the abortion hype? Are they contentious about the abortion slogans? Are they contentious because they only see one side of the issue? Are they contentious because they know some of the facts but yet don't care enough or have time to study and be aware of the full context of the abortion issue and how it impacts society?

    I think the contention which drives the abortion controversy is a combination of all the above. So what would happen if we replaced the contentious abortion hype with objective facts, testimonies on both sides, expert professional commentary on both sides, data and medical knowledge? What would happened if we replaced contentious abortion slogans with 38 years of objective unbiased abortion clinical studies and data and the science of embryology?

    How would it work by replacing the hype and slogans with facts, science and data? A big controversy could wiggle down to one a controversy of facts and data against facts and data instead of emotional slogans against emotional hype.

    The controversy won't go away, then again, controversy isn't necessarily bad, as I think we both agree. It only becomes dangerous and counter-productive and destructive when the consequences divide the nation instead of unite us .

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Likewise your argument has been all along that this is better handled at the state level so you not only have to support that it will work but likewise support that it will work more effectively if done by the state.
    Since the Casey decision gave the states more freedom to legislate abortion restrictions and laws over abortion in their state, I haven't seen thousands of people demonstrating in our city streets that this legislative freedom isn't working. So this is a good first step that shows the U.S. states are quite capable, as they were for over 100 years to deal with the abortion issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    At this point, I will not respond to any further claims
    ok


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    As far as I'm concerned you are just trucking out pro-life "hype", not giving a reality check. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal and therefore does not qualify it as murder.
    Well, let's examine the moving scales of legal vs illegal. What is legal or illegal is often determined by our legislative branch and sometimes state officials. History also shows us that what is legal vs. illegal can change over time. With regards to murder, for example, it was legal for a slave owner to kill a black man-- his slave (since black men/women had no rights) decades ago for minor things like talking back to his owner. However, even back then many people, especially in the north, thought killing innocent black men/women for no serious crime was murder and should be illegal and white men should be persecuted for such crimes. However, since black men didn't have rights and were regarded as 'property,' the law did not protect them and white men could legally kill (murder) black men for no serious crime -- and they did.

    Before 1973, in many states, killing an unborn child especially after 12 weeks was illegal. After 1973 it became legal. So, I accept your current position that abortion is not illegal. However, bear in mind that many people today think abortion should be illegal, just as many people throughout the 1800's regarded killing black men/women was illegal just because they had no rights and were regarded as property.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Then why do national organizations generally collect more money?
    Probably because they have more contributing members. However, not all national issues are important or have a high priority to every state at the local level. States fund raise based upon the interest and dedication of local citizens when the issue effects them, their family, their finances, their community, their work and health in a personal way.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    But both sides already know the fact that abortion kills a fetus and likewise know that banning abortion will prohibit a woman from legally obtaining an abortion and various sides have strong opinions on which of these two things is the "greater evil". You are apparently forwarding that there are unknown facts that if people knew, would lessen the controversy.Well, what are those facts?
    That's where the program director to such an educational project has to gather up a good research team and get to work. I don't know the facts of the pros and cons of 38 years of abortion clinics. I don't have access to the raw data, statistics and studies, though I sure would be interested to learn those facts and I trust many others would also, since our tax dollars goes toward funding these clinics.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    I understand that many people do not have all of the information about pregnancy and abortion, but the issue is whether people are lacking relevant facts,
    That's not for you or I to decide. What's relevant to you and me may not be relevant to thousands of others and visa versa. The idea of an objective educational program for the public is that it presents all the facts, all the information on the subject and people will choose to consider and further study what they want.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    that if they did know, would make a difference. It is the basis of your argument that such facts exist. And if that is your position you need to support this by means such as telling me what those facts are.
    I know the slogans. I don't know the science of embryology or what top medical doctors and scientists on both sides of the abortion issue have to say about the unborn child; I don't know why contraceptions and their availability are not reducing unwanted pregnancy. No doubt, there are facts behind such issues that could help the public be better informed.


    Even abortion doctors are not well informed about contraceptions:

    Sadly, a systemic lack of education and training for doctors prevents them from providing good contraceptive counselling. This is especially true of the intrauterine device (IUD) - an effective, long-term birth control method with an undeservedly bad reputation dating from the 1970s and early 1980s. Many colleagues tell of placing IUDs in their patients, only to have other doctors remove them because they mistakenly believe there is a high risk of infection and infertility. The lack of training leaves too many doctors open to old controversies and misconceptions which they pass on to their patients and students.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    So I'm asking you if you believe that born babies should be treated as you are arguing that we should treat fetuses, which is allow the states to decide if they should be killed? So to reframe the question, do you believe that born babies should be legally treated the same as you advocate we treat fetuses?
    The main differences between a born child and an unborn child is development. If we remove the protection of a unborn human life because of full development or what we call "normal", then we need to reassess the legal rights of all people who are challengingly developed, like the mentally retard, the elderly who suffer from dementia and other mental illness, to name just a few.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    "Legalized murder" is a contradiction in terms, not to mention hype.
    Killing black people for no serious crime, expect for the fact that they were black and because they had no rights before the civil war was also a form of legalized murder. Though I don't think they called killing a black slave murder because they wanted to sleep peacefully at night just as we do today. They justified such murder or killing a black man for no serious crime because they were killing a non-person with no rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    No, it's not. Again, if it's not illegal, it's not murder. So if fetus did not die due to an unlawful act, it was not murdered.
    Fetal homicide state laws indicate that killing an unborn child (fetus) is murder because those laws recognize the fetus as a human life and it is illegal to kill this unborn human life. If a criminal kills the unborn child, it's murder. If a doctor kills the unborn child because the mother doesn't want the child, it's not murder. Do you recognize this legal right of the human unborn life it is killed by a criminal? Got to love those contradictions in the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    And I work in order to get a paycheck so am I "work addicted"?
    If you want money (a paycheck), you don't have to work. You could invest and live of your investment. If a women is pregnant and doesn't want the child, the addiction (dependency) to abortion is locked in. Why wouldn't it be? That's the culture we've created. Not that there are no other options to women for an unwanted child, there are. But the abortion dependency has been packaged and branded as being sweet, legal and quick. Though some women are brave and do choose to break out of this dependency by choosing other options.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Laws created at governmental levels lower than the federal.
    All local state constitutions have to be based on and can't contradict the U.S. Constitutional law. From day one of America's birth, all laws that protected the unborn were based on the U.S. Constitution.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    But what removed the laws were the actions of the Supreme Court. Do you disagree with it happening this way (keeping in mind that any other method would have been much slower)?
    Sure, the court undid a legislative fiat in the south that degraded black men/women because they were poor, defenseless and attackable. Unfortunately, we still haven't completely learned how to respect the dignity of human life, regardless of color or development. America is still in the business of sanctioning killing the innocent and defendless.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    I have only concede that attacks can be made on Roe. I never conceded that it cannot be legally defended.
    As I said pages back, if the original decision could be legally defended, state legislatures would not have the current freedom they have over abortion laws today.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Which is a far cry from being against women having the choice of viewing an ultrasound of the fetus. I assume that if a woman asks the doctor to perform an ultrasound so she can see the fetus, PP has no objections whatsoever.
    Did you say ask? The reason there are now laws that mandate abortion clinics to give women the option to see ultrasound is because many uneducated, poor, young women are clueless about ultrasound, especially teenagers.

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    So your statement that PP opposes a woman's choice to view an ultrasound is incorrect.
    They oppose even her choice to view it. There is no evidence that contradicts this statement. They have fought every state legislature since the Casey decision that gave states the right to create legislative restrictions to abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    But the position that either side or both sides are so ignorant that a certain amount of education will significantly decrease the controversy is completely unsupported.
    Are you familiar with the story of the blind mind and the elephant?

    The main support I can provide that the general pubic is uninformed about the full context of the abortion issue is because I see no objective reputable evidence that shows the general public is aware of the facts beyond the abortion slogans and hype. This in itself keeps the controversy at an emotional level by design.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    But there's no good reason to mandate that she have the ultrasound in the first place. Assuming THAT is what PP are objecting to, they are correct.
    Some states have laws mandating ultrasound; some states have laws that allow the women to choose. PP has fought against both measures. Giving a women who wants to abort the choice to be well informed before she aborts with the option to see ultrasound or be verbally informed about fetal stage development is not something they support. They think giving women who want to abort 'this choice' is intrusive. That's why you will not find in states that don't have legislation mandating it, PP advertising their services promoting such choices in information

    And that's why some women who abort end up hiring an attorney like Harold Cassidy who defends a women's right to be well informed before she aborts.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    As far as your link goes, again, I'm only accepting links from unbiased sources. The Southern Party of Georgia clearly has a pro-life bias.
    The quote I posted was simply a good legal analysis of "Right to Know" laws and how different state legislatures have enacted them. States that haven't yet passed Right to Know laws for abortion clinics are not required to inform or give women the choice of being informed about important information before they abort. Information like fetal development, other possible options to abortion, counseling, etc.

    If you are under the impression that all abortion clinics in America inform women who want to abort of the medical risks of abortion and the risks of carrying a pregnacy, the possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion, probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed, the father's responsibility, medical assistance benefits may be available to prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, information on free ultrasounds -- you're misinformed.

    If this was the case, this information would be available on all abortion clinics websites, like it is on many abortion clinics websites that are in states that have right to know laws on the books.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    Just giving me a link and asking me to look up the relevant information is an actual violation of the rules at ODN (it's called "linkwarz"
    I posted the relevant information. Perhaps you're not reading all my responses. Last attempt.


    "State-Mandated Counseling: 18 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (10 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or information on the availability of ultrasound (10 states). "

    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    And if "right to know" laws include waiting periods and forced ultrasounds then I likewise have a problem with them.
    Rest assured, you can always choose to get involved in the process to change the law, if you choose to in your local state.


    Quote Originally Posted by miccan333
    If it's nothing other than the relevant information that a woman should have to make the best decision for herself, then I support such laws.
    What you may consider irrelevant, many women may consider relevant. What some doctors making a very comfortable living on abortions may consider irrelevant, some women may consider relevant if given the choice to be informed. The beauty of an open and free-thinking, civilized society is that we are free to examine all the information, get second opinions (especially in a controversial issue) obtain all the facts of a particular issue before we make our choices.

    Imposed ignorance doesn't work.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  3. #203
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What you may consider irrelevant, many women may consider relevant. What some doctors making a very comfortable living on abortions may consider irrelevant, some women may consider relevant if given the choice to be informed. The beauty of an open and free-thinking, civilized society is that we are free to examine all the information, get second opinions (especially in a controversial issue) obtain all the facts of a particular issue before we make our choices.

    Imposed ignorance doesn't work.
    I'm very interested in what you're considering to be "relevant information" here.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  4. #204
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Before you continue, I just realized a very serious flaw in your "educational summit" argument. It doesn't provide a valid reason to overturn Roe since there is nothing in Roe from preventing the summit from happening. So really this argument should be dropped and I should just stop responding to it. But just in case you can show that somehow it is relevant on whether or not Roe's status...

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Is the general public contentious about the abortion hype? Are they contentious about the abortion slogans? Are they contentious because they only see one side of the issue?
    Maybe a little, but those are not the main reasons there is a controversy.

    While a pro-lifer may have some issues with pro-choice "hype", their main objection to the state of abortion is that terminating pregnancies is generally legal. And likewise that person will not be assuaged short of:

    1. Abortion being made illegal (which will anger pro-choicers thus continuing the controversy).

    2. That person changes his mind so he's alright with the state of the law


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Are they contentious because they know some of the facts but yet don't care enough or have time to study and be aware of the full context of the abortion issue and how it impacts society?
    No. They are contentious because one side (pro-life) believes that abortion is murder and the other side (pro-choice) believes that abortion is a fundamental right that is under threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think the contention which drives the abortion
    controversy is a combination of all the above.
    I think what is above is a practically insignificant part of the controversy. I would consider it around 1% of the controversy compared to the issues I forwarded above.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So what would happen if we replaced the contentious abortion hype with objective facts, testimonies on both sides, expert professional commentary on both sides, data and medical knowledge? What would happened if we replaced contentious abortion slogans with 38 years of objective unbiased abortion clinical studies and data and the science of embryology?
    I see no reason to believe that either side is not appropriately aware of the objective facts that inform their point of view.

    So remove the hype and you would still have two groups that hold very strong and opposing opinions. They'd have less reason to complain about the tactics of the other side (since no one is using hype), but the fundamental disagreement would remain.

    And I don't think you would even be able to remove the hype anyway. It's not like when someone is using hype, they aren't aware of it. Sure, the other side may see through it, but if one believes that hype might influence someone and their cause is just enough to warrant using hype, then they would still use it.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    How would it work by replacing the hype and slogans with facts, science and data? A big controversy could wiggle down to one a controversy of facts and data against facts and data instead of emotional slogans against emotional hype.
    And the controversy would rage about as strongly as ever.

    Again, I see no reason to conclude that either side is not aware of the relevant facts so giving them facts won't make much of a difference. Every fact you could give would either:

    1. Be something they are already aware, and therefore irrelevant to alleviating the controversy
    2. Be something that isn't relevant to alleviating the controversy and therefore won't alleviate the controversy.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The controversy won't go away, then again, controversy isn't necessarily bad, as I think we both agree. It only becomes dangerous and counter-productive and destructive when the consequences divide the nation instead of unite us .
    I don't think the controversy isn't going to go away and your "solution" won't make it go away. Nor is it government's job (at any level) to alleviate controversies. And if this solution was practiced at state level and succeeded then it wouldn't effect the rest of the country so it wouldn't even be a solution to our national problem. Nor is the controversy particularly destructive. No one is getting killed from it and those who disagree over this issue will still unite over issues that they do agree on.

    And one thing that I'm pretty sure that both sides of the abortion debate agree on is that the primary problem is not that they disagree and therefore seeking to make them agree isn't even the solution to the problem from either perspective.

    So can we drop this "solution" of attempting to alleviate the controversy by having the states create a presentation? It really fails on so many level.

    In fact, it even fails as a rational reason to overturn Roe. Even if your idea was a great one, you could do it without overturning Roe (since Roe in no way prevents states from having state-sponsored abortion presentations).

    I wish I had thought of that a while back.

    So until you can explain why this educational proposals of yours is a valid reason to overturn Roe, I will consider it irrelevant to the debate and not respond to further points concerning it.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Before 1973, in many states, killing an unborn child especially after 12 weeks was illegal. After 1973 it became legal. So, I accept your current position that abortion is not illegal. However, bear in mind that many people today think abortion should be illegal, just as many people throughout the 1800's regarded killing black men/women was illegal just because they had no rights and were regarded as property.
    Whatever. My rebuttal still stands. Calling it "murder" is not a "reality check". Pro-choicers do not consider it to be "murder" and just calling it that is "hype".




    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The main differences between a born child and an unborn child is development. If we remove the protection of a unborn human life because of full development or what we call "normal", then we need to reassess the legal rights of all people who are challengingly developed, like the mentally retard, the elderly who suffer from dementia and other mental illness, to name just a few.

    I'm getting very tired of you dodging my questions.
    You can expound on a question however you like, but as Yes/No question is to be answered either with a "YES" or a "NO".

    So I will ask again (and if you continue to refuse to respond with either Yes or No, my next post will contain nothing other than the following question).

    So I'm asking you if you believe that born babies should be treated as you are arguing that we should treat fetuses, which is allow the states to decide if they should be killed? So to reframe the question, do you believe that born babies should be legally treated the same as you advocate we treat fetuses?

    And to respond to your above point, if we have the rule that born people are protected, then we do not need to reassess this because we don't extend the same right to the unborn.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Killing black people for no serious crime, expect for the fact that they were black and because they had no rights before the civil war was also a form of legalized murder.
    I would say it was very, very wrong and if it was done today under today's laws, it would be murder.

    But if the law did not outlaw such activity back then, then back then it wasn't technically murder (at least under the laws of that area - it might legally be murder in other states or under federal law).



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Fetal homicide state laws indicate that killing an unborn child (fetus) is murder because those laws recognize the fetus as a human life and it is illegal to kill this unborn human life. If a criminal kills the unborn child, it's murder. If a doctor kills the unborn child because the mother doesn't want the child, it's not murder. Do you recognize this legal right of the human unborn life it is killed by a criminal? Got to love those contradictions in the law.
    It's not contradictory at all. Perhaps a little strange, but not contradictory. It's just a matter of priority.

    The mother's right to abortion comes before the fetus' right to life so the state cannot declare that the fetus has a right to life that overrides the mother's right to abortion. But the state can rule that the fetus has a right to life that overrides anything that it not a constitutional concern, such as prosecuting those who kill it without the mother's consent.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If you want money (a paycheck), you don't have to work. You could invest and live of your investment.
    How do I have money to invest if I never earn any money by working?


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If a women is pregnant and doesn't want the child, the addiction (dependency) to abortion is locked in.
    Addiction is not just any dependency. It is an irrational psychological need. Just requiring A to achieve goal B does not make A an addiction. And an addiction is likewise something one needs on some kind of consistent basis. An abortion is something that many women only need once. I doubt you'd consider someone who only drank alcohol one time to be addicted to alcohol.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    All local state constitutions have to be based on and can't contradict the U.S. Constitutional law. From day one of America's birth, all laws that protected the unborn were based on the U.S. Constitution.
    Support or retract.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Sure, the court undid a legislative fiat in the south that degraded black men/women because they were poor, defenseless and attackable.
    And assuming you agree that doing so was appropriate then you likewise have to agree that sometimes the highest court of the land undoing laws is a good thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Did you say ask? The reason there are now laws that mandate abortion clinics to give women the option to see ultrasound is because many uneducated, poor, young women are clueless about ultrasound, especially teenagers.
    Stop dodging the issue. To repeat (and if you don't contradict me, I will consider the point conceded) - there is no reason to believe that PP would object to a woman seeing an ultrasound image of her fetus if she asked to see it.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    They oppose even her choice to view it. There is no evidence that contradicts this statement.
    There is no evidence supporting it. So support or retract this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    They have fought every state legislature since the Casey decision that gave states the right to create legislative restrictions to abortion.
    Which does not mean that they oppose a woman's choice to view an ultrasound.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Some states have laws mandating ultrasound; some states have laws that allow the women to choose. PP has fought against both measures.
    Support or retract that there are laws that allow women to choose whether the have an ultrasound and then view the image that PP opposed because it did that (as oppose to a law that allowed choice and had a bunch of other things that PP objected to).


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Giving a women who wants to abort the choice to be well informed before she aborts with the option to see ultrasound or be verbally informed about fetal stage development is not something they support. They think giving women who want to abort 'this choice' is intrusive.
    Mandating ultrasounds and giving waiting periods IS intrusive.

    I'm aware that different states have different laws concerning this and while some states have proposed laws that PP have good reason to object to, it is possible that they are objecting to some reasonable laws as well. I doubt it, but it is possible.

    So for you to make a case that they are objecting to reasonable laws you will have to support this by both:

    1. Providing an example of a law that has nothing that is reasonable for PP to object to (with a link - I will not accept bare assertions).

    2. Showing that PP objects to this law.

    For all I know, every law they are objecting to has many unreasonable things in it that they object to and they happen to have something reasonable as well that they don't object to but of course they object to the law in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If you are under the impression that all abortion clinics in America inform women who want to abort of the medical risks of abortion and the risks of carrying a pregnacy, the possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion, probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed, the father's responsibility, medical assistance benefits may be available to prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, information on free ultrasounds -- you're misinformed.
    I believe it's entirely possible that somewhere women aren't given all of the relevant information they need to make the best decisions for themselves. And in such cases, I'm for laws giving them all of the relevant information.

    I'm also aware that many people want to decrease abortion by any means necessary and therefore have a vested interest in doing whatever they can to get a woman to change her mind about having an abortion and therefore would like the women to receive information that will persuade them to not go through with the abortion and/or make the process as inconvenient as possible so they will not be able to go through with the abortion. So there is an incentive to create laws that aren't aimed at helping the woman make the best choice for herself, but make it as least likely as they can that she will go through with the abortion, regardless of what's in her best interest. And it seems that PP believes that at least some of these laws are created with that goal in mind and if so, they are perfectly justified in opposing them.

    So again, I will need to see some evidence that there are indeed "good" laws (as in laws aimed at just giving the woman only the relevant information she needs to make the best decision for herself) that PP opposes before I will have a problem with what PP are doing.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What you may consider irrelevant, many women may consider relevant.
    When I say "relevant", I mean information that competent professionals, both medically and psychologically, believe that a woman should know in order to make the best decision in her own self-interest.

    I am not such an expert so I will not going forward what exactly is and is not relevant. And likewise a person who is primarily interested in preventing abortions as opposed to interested in the well-being of the woman considering an abortion should not be deciding what is relevant either.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What some doctors making a very comfortable living on abortions may consider irrelevant, some women may consider relevant if given the choice to be informed.
    And likewise those doctors should not be the sole deciders of what's relevant either.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The beauty of an open and free-thinking, civilized society is that we are free to examine all the information, get second opinions (especially in a controversial issue) obtain all the facts of a particular issue before we make our choices.

    Imposed ignorance doesn't work.
    Never argued otherwise. But when it comes time to give a woman information, you do need to limit what she's told to the particularly relevant information. If you give her a dross of factual information, much of which is not relevant, she is less likely to consider the information that is relevant to the decision she has to make.
    Last edited by mican333; April 4th, 2011 at 09:04 AM.

  5. #205
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I'm very interested in what you're considering to be "relevant information" here.
    I actually didn't bring up the concept of relevant information. I like the idea of 'objective all-inclusive information.'

    Here's an outline of information in 'Right to Know' laws in two states that have them in place: Georgia and Minnesota. I certainly have no problem with this type of common-sense information being given to women who want to abort by every abortion clinic in America. Unfortunately, common sense does not dominate this industry.

    1) the particular medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed;
    2) the probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed;
    3) the medical risks associated with carrying her child to term;
    4) for abortions after 20 weeks gestational, whether or not an anesthetic or analgesic would eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed and the particular medical benefits and risks associated with the particular anesthetic or analgesic. A physician must also provide the woman with any additional costs associated with the administration of an anesthetic or analgesic.
    5) that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care;
    6) that the father is liable to assist in the support of her child even in instances when the father has offered to pay for an abortion; and
    7) that she has the right to review materials made available by the Minnesota Department of Health.

    http://www.health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.html

    Medical risks of abortion,
    Abortion methods and associated medical risks,
    The possible detrimental psychological effects,
    Medical risks of carrying a pregnancy to term,
    Probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed,|
    Father's responsibility,
    Medical assistance benefits may be available to prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care
    Information on free ultrasounds

    http://health.state.ga.us/wrtk/
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  6. #206
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I actually didn't bring up the concept of relevant information. I like the idea of 'objective all-inclusive information.'

    Here's an outline of information in 'Right to Know' laws in two states that have them in place: Georgia and Minnesota. I certainly have no problem with this type of common-sense information being given to women who want to abort by every abortion clinic in America. Unfortunately, common sense does not dominate this industry.
    Would you consider potential "spiritual consequences" of abortion as something "objective all-inclusive information?"
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  7. #207
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Would you consider potential "spiritual consequences" of abortion as something "objective all-inclusive information?"
    What does potential spiritual consequences mean and how is that related to right to know laws?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  8. #208
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What does potential spiritual consequences mean and how is that related to right to know laws?
    You said "objective all-inclusive information." Surely "all-inclusive" means literally "all-inclusive" and as such would include any sort of "spiritual" information about abortion as well... for example, what the stain of murder means to your immortal soul... If it isn't something you'd consider necessary prior to a woman consenting to an abortion, then you aren't interested in women getting "all-inclusive" information.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  9. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    You said "objective all-inclusive information." Surely "all-inclusive" means literally "all-inclusive" and as such would include any sort of "spiritual" information about abortion as well... for example, what the stain of murder means to your immortal soul... If it isn't something you'd consider necessary prior to a woman consenting to an abortion, then you aren't interested in women getting "all-inclusive" information.
    But I wouldn't call it "objective". Doesn't "objective" mean that it's an accepted fact?

  10. #210
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I wouldn't call it "objective". Doesn't "objective" mean that it's an accepted fact?
    That entirely depends up on your definition of "objective." I tend to think of "Objective" as "exists outside of the mind." I have no argument to suggest that "spirituality" exists solely in the mind... so why shouldn't spiritual matters be discussed with girls thinking about abortion, or any other medical matter, before-hand?

    Besides, I was trying to figure out what you were objecting to with the "only if it's relevant" line... I took a stab at religious counseling type stuff.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  11. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    That entirely depends up on your definition of "objective." I tend to think of "Objective" as "exists outside of the mind." I have no argument to suggest that "spirituality" exists solely in the mind... so why shouldn't spiritual matters be discussed with girls thinking about abortion, or any other medical matter, before-hand?
    If a girl chooses to discuss these matters with clergy before making a decision, that's fine. But it's not something that should be mandated by state.

    BUT if it's a fact that women are not receiving the objective (as in undeniably factual) information they should have to make the best decisions for themselves, then there's reason to make sure they do have the information.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Besides, I was trying to figure out what you were objecting to with the "only if it's relevant" line... I took a stab at religious counseling type stuff.
    Again, if it's something that a woman should know in order to make the best decision for herself, she should know it. I don't know specifically what that would entail which is why I'm not being that specific.

    But I suspect that some on the pro-life side would like the woman exposed to information that is not designed to let her make an informed decision in her own self-interest, but is instead designed to persuade her to decide not to have an abortion. Receiving that kind of information is not something that should be made law.

    So again, if we are going to mandate that a woman receive information concerning abortion prior to having one, it should be strictly limited to objective information that she should be aware of in order to make the best decision for herself. Any information that does not qualify as that should not be required by law.

  12. #212
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions fro ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    This OP looks familiar.

    Told you I've been here a while.

    I don't know that this variable adds any dimension to the already complex issue of abortion. Even if it were true (and it isn't true, folks), it wouldn't change the central point of contention i.e. the issue of choice.
    Choice? We are born with natural "unlimited" choices granted through the gift of Free Will. Simply because one has a choice does that grant them the right to Kill a living gestating human being under any pretense...especially the false pretense of privacy concerns? Because something might be legal....that does not make it Moral, as laws simply reflect the morality or the lack thereof of any culture.

    But...even the moral culture of this nation does not reflect ABORTION on DEMAND as being LEGAL, or a law that is reflected as coming from We the People. Why not show us the LAW that finds Abortion legal under any circumstance...that was a product of Legislation coming from the Peoples Representative..prior to a few IMMORAL JUDGES' opinion which incorporated Abortion on demand as a Legal Act. Show us the legislated law that allows Abortion prior to the Roe. v. Wade incorporation in the early 70s, where the SCOTUS ignored the previous 200 years of established precedent and attempted to DEFINE LIFE void of any representation from the people when they legislated NEW LAW from the bench.

    Congress, The peoples representatives have it right. Simply Look at the endangered species act of 1973. This legislated Act defines the life of the unborn to be representative of LIFE within that species. If you do not believe it...simply attempt to destroy the nest or the eggs of some endangered species...you will be punished by fine and or imprisonment. Strange that gestating pre born animals have more rights than gestating humans in this nation...no?

  13. #213
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions fro ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Choice? We are born with natural "unlimited" choices granted through the gift of Free Will. Simply because one has a choice does that grant them the right to Kill a living gestating human being under any pretense...especially the false pretense of privacy concerns? Because something might be legal....that does not make it Moral, as laws simply reflect the morality or the lack thereof of any culture.

    But...even the moral culture of this nation does not reflect ABORTION on DEMAND as being LEGAL, or a law that is reflected as coming from We the People. Why not show us the LAW that finds Abortion legal under any circumstance...that was a product of Legislation coming from the Peoples Representative..prior to a few IMMORAL JUDGES' opinion which incorporated Abortion on demand as a Legal Act. Show us the legislated law that allows Abortion prior to the Roe. v. Wade incorporation in the early 70s, where the SCOTUS ignored the previous 200 years of established precedent and attempted to DEFINE LIFE void of any representation from the people when they legislated NEW LAW from the bench.

    Congress, The peoples representatives have it right. Simply Look at the endangered species act of 1973. This legislated Act defines the life of the unborn to be representative of LIFE within that species. If you do not believe it...simply attempt to destroy the nest or the eggs of some endangered species...you will be punished by fine and or imprisonment. Strange that gestating pre born animals have more rights than gestating humans in this nation...no?
    Why are you telling me all this? It doesn't seem to relate to any claim I made in the post you quoted.

  14. #214
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    You said "objective all-inclusive information." Surely "all-inclusive" means literally "all-inclusive" and as such would include any sort of "spiritual" information about abortion as well... for example, what the stain of murder means to your immortal soul... If it isn't something you'd consider necessary prior to a woman consenting to an abortion, then you aren't interested in women getting "all-inclusive" information.
    I see. I'm not sure how easily that would pass at the state level to get a consensus. Do you think that spiritual information should be included in "right to know abortion laws" that are passed by state legislatures?

    At this stage of "right to know" laws that are passed by individual state legislatures, I think passing laws that require spiritual and/or religious views to be include in the law, might be a bit of stretch for some politicians. But that may change down the line.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. #215
    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 eye4magic View Post
    I see. I'm not sure how easily that would pass at the state level to get a consensus. Do you think that spiritual information should be included in "right to know abortion laws" that are passed by state legislatures?

    At this stage of "right to know" laws that are passed by individual state legislatures, I think passing laws that require spiritual and/or religious views to be include in the law, might be a bit of stretch for some politicians. But that may change down the line.
    This is interesting. Most civilians are not familiar with the roles chaplains have as religious professionals who areemplyed by governmens, fed and local, to minister, advise and counsel.

    No reason a state can not mandate a qualified chaplain be available and their contact info clearly posted.
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  16. #216
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    aberdeen ,Scotland, great britain.
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    i' m going to start a new thread asking - Is abortion murder? that should get to the root of the matter and stir up the nest!
    Choice would be the default position for homosexual genes, I suppose, However if one parent is for and the other against spose pro life gets to keep it, but that may be dependant on the sex of the child- I cant get my head round aborting a female homosexual. [muddy waters MW]
    I think in heaven mistakes will be researched by the clever and cared for by the rich.

    ---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoamI View Post
    I am firmly against abortion for any reason.

    However, if abortion is going to remain legal....aborting because your son might be gay is just as good a reason as any other.
    Are you prepared to pay for the care involved in bringing natures mistakes into the world. Perhaps if we laid the bill at your feet would you pick it up?
    The term abortion is essentially charged as it is a violent act.
    Would you consider leaving the child to die naturally or with drugs to help the pain?
    Should a person who leaves a child to die be guilty of murder?
    I personally think the law and doctors should decide on a case by case method, bring them out then allow them to die, Im not sure how it works but the foetus should be given to the parents to dispose of then they would know what they have done

  17. #217
    STFUcami97
    Guest

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    No one is born gay, no baby is born to be homosexual,a bad person, a baby doesn't even know what all those things are. I support abortion to a certain extent you see my sister is ill and she has to take medication and if she ever got pregnant her medication could hurt the fetus or make it to be born without and important organ or body part, I think it is wrong to get a baby aborted if the person gets pregnant then says oh well I don't want it. I think that is wrong people should be careful but my sister would want a kid but she can't have one and some people are like 'well stop the medication.' if she stopped the medication she would die before the baby was even born. Abortion is okay if the person needs it for medical reasons or for the fetus' own good.

  18. #218
    Summer261997
    Guest

    Re: Abortions for ANY reasons?

    To your first question, I say no. Under no circumstances should a female ever abort a fetus simply because they may be inclined to become a homosexual human when they are fully grown. That's absurd reasoning, and, honestly, if a person decides that, they shouldn't be permitted to have children in the first place.
    Now, as for your second question, I can think of one reason a woman should be able to abort a fetus. If she is carrying a baby which she conceived due to being raped or otherwise forced into something of that consequence, I don't think she should be further pushed to have the baby. It's quite possible that the pain of such a situation would mentally unhinge the woman and it would only harm her further should she deliver the baby. It would be a very tragic event on both ends, the baby's and the mother's, however, in that situation, the decision should ultimately be the rape victims.

 

 
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11

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
  •