Sunday, January 22 was the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's interesting here...the number of abortions has been going down almost constantly since they were made legal. Certainly in the past 20 years or so, abortions have gone down almost every year. What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

That's an entirely different debate. In a given situation, either abortion is wrong or it's not. Therefore, if one opposes abortion in said situation, it doesn't matter if the number is 100 or 1,000,000 - it's still wrong. Sure, there are things we can do to decrease the number, but these don't get at the root of the problem. Just like we can do things to decrease the number of murders that occur every year, but we still keep murder illegal because it's wrong.

That doesn't make sense. It seems like if you are really pro-life, you'd do everything possible to decrease the number of abortions. Sure, you'd engage in a long term battle against Roe v. Wade. But in the meantime, you'd support any other measure that could possibly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

I'm not arguing that this means you SHOULDN'T oppose Roe v. Wade if you are part of the pro-life crowd, I'm saying I find it weird that this is all most of you do. I mean, this isn't just some nebulous moral issue, it's about "saving lives" right?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: RichardE
42million less potential welfare children :beer: for Roe vs Wade

Originally posted by: Meuge
42 million less children who would be brought into life with incomplete/broken families, who'd be despised by their mother/parents, and who'd grow up knowing that they weren't wanted in the first place.

It's scary to even think of the torture that such a life would be.

Wow, just wow, maybe we should start looking at the low income family of the US, those kids born in the project or trailer parks and start killing them too. Better yet, let's start nuking poor countries, since those kids will never become anything just because they don't have the "perfect environment" when they are born.

Well, maybe China was right after all, you get to kill of the children before they are born just because they don't serve your need or somehow you determined those childern are not gonna help your society.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's interesting here...the number of abortions has been going down almost constantly since they were made legal. Certainly in the past 20 years or so, abortions have gone down almost every year. What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

That's an entirely different debate. In a given situation, either abortion is wrong or it's not. Therefore, if one opposes abortion in said situation, it doesn't matter if the number is 100 or 1,000,000 - it's still wrong. Sure, there are things we can do to decrease the number, but these don't get at the root of the problem. Just like we can do things to decrease the number of murders that occur every year, but we still keep murder illegal because it's wrong.

That's cause the "moral majority" lives in a different world from the rest of humanity. As a future doctor, I support the doctrine of "harm reduction" as an alternative to impossibility.

I tend to think doctors have the best viewpoint on the issue, mostly because you guys have to be involved with very difficult decisions like this every day. You realize that sometimes a bad decision can still be the best one, and that getting all huffy and puffy and complaining that the world isn't perfect is NOT an effective way to solve the problem.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: RichardE
42million less potential welfare children :beer: for Roe vs Wade

Originally posted by: Meuge
42 million less children who would be brought into life with incomplete/broken families, who'd be despised by their mother/parents, and who'd grow up knowing that they weren't wanted in the first place.

It's scary to even think of the torture that such a life would be.

Wow, just wow, maybe we should start looking at the low income family of the US, those kids born in the project or trailer parks and start killing them too. Better yet, let's start nuking poor countries, since those kids will never become anything just because they don't have the "perfect environment" when they are born.

Well, maybe China was right after all, you get to kill of the children before they are born just because they don't serve your need or somehow you determined those childern are not gonna help your society.

No, establish work programs like I stated in the welfare thread a few weeks ago instead of just handing money out. But this is OT, so we should just drop it

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

This is simply a red herring of the left. The ethics of these two issues are isolated entirely, though the repercussions may overlap. Either abortion is wrong in a given situation or it isn't. Either the use of birth control in a given situation is wrong or it isn't. However, the use of birth control in no way influences whether an abortion is right or wrong in a given situation, hence: red herring.

Originally posted by: Meuge
That's cause the "moral majority" lives in a different world from the rest of humanity. As a future doctor, I support the doctrine of "harm reduction" as an alternative to impossibility.

As a future doctor, you should know the oath that you're going to take: the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately, since the legalization of abortion on demand, the bolded portion below has been omitted by most medical schools to avoid ethical conflicts.

I swear that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art ? if they desire to learn it ? without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who have instructed me and to pupils who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.

Correct you are sir, but modern day procedures and technology are taking abortion to new limits.

India's Abortion Gender Gap

AP) Experts urged the Indian government to enforce laws against prenatal gender checks and to work to change attitudes after a study showed up to 10 million female fetuses may have been selectively aborted in India over the past two decades

Researchers found that second children were less likely to be girls if the firstborn was a girl, according to the study published Monday in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal.

Dipankar Gupta, a sociologist, blamed the failure on the government's inability to implement laws against fetal sex determination and medical termination of pregnancy on the basis of gender.

This is the World and reality we live in. I reject the idea that those that are aborted could not live a free and wonderful life. That they themselves could not offer something to humanity that may better this World in some small or significant way. Further, that they could not find their way in this world and live a life of free will and happiness. I reject the social cost argument because on the opposite side of that is the possibility of great and wonderful things.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Like I said, I find it sickly amusing that the very folks who claim to be pro-life are often the same folks who oppose that kind of program. Or at the very least, you don't see them lining up behind it. No, the people who support those programs are often the evil pro-choicers. Yeah, I kind of wish kids would wait until they are older to have sex. But they are going to do it anyways, might as well make sure they are doing it safely and responsibly.

Well, I agree somewhat with these preventative measures. If they are going to do something, let them do it safely. Then again, if the gov. is handing out pills, that is really close to supporting sex for minors, and there are laws against that kind of thing. Most pro-lifers aren't against the pill- just against giving the minor the pill, and reason to think that the gov. supports it.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: RichardE
42million less potential welfare children :beer: for Roe vs Wade

Originally posted by: Meuge
42 million less children who would be brought into life with incomplete/broken families, who'd be despised by their mother/parents, and who'd grow up knowing that they weren't wanted in the first place.

It's scary to even think of the torture that such a life would be.

Wow, just wow, maybe we should start looking at the low income family of the US, those kids born in the project or trailer parks and start killing them too. Better yet, let's start nuking poor countries, since those kids will never become anything just because they don't have the "perfect environment" when they are born.

Well, maybe China was right after all, you get to kill of the children before they are born just because they don't serve your need or somehow you determined those childern are not gonna help your society.

Sorry, I just had to quote this. And since it is replying to other on-topic posts, it is applicable in this thread.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Like I said, I find it sickly amusing that the very folks who claim to be pro-life are often the same folks who oppose that kind of program. Or at the very least, you don't see them lining up behind it. No, the people who support those programs are often the evil pro-choicers. Yeah, I kind of wish kids would wait until they are older to have sex. But they are going to do it anyways, might as well make sure they are doing it safely and responsibly.

Well, I agree somewhat with these preventative measures. If they are going to do something, let them do it safely. Then again, if the gov. is handing out pills, that is really close to supporting sex for minors, and there are laws against that kind of thing. Most pro-lifers aren't against the pill- just against giving the minor the pill, and reason to think that the gov. supports it.

There are laws against "supporting sex for minors"? Do tell...

In any case, this isn't the land of fairies and puppy dogs...there is often no perfect solution. If these kids are going to have sex, it seems like a wise move would be to at least help make sure they aren't getting a disease or pregnant.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.
the MONTH, not day or days.

Better education about and access to contraceptives is needed, but that is opposed by the current administration since its fundamentalist power base considers sex "sinful."

Abortion has done nothing to reduce child abuse. Actually child abuse increased over 1000% from 1973, the year abortion was legalized throughout the United States, to 1986.

Part of that is certainly that many more families are reporting abuse instead of concealing it, and that school workers are trained to look for and report suspected abuse. I've also never seen a pro-choice argument saying that abortions would reduce abuse.

I don't look at this as a black and white debate, and I think Rainsford has the right idea: work to reduce the number of unwanted pregancies rather than re-criminalize abortions.

Also, like I implied in my post above, work to make life better for all babies in the US (not just the healthy white ones) and more women will be willing to keep their babies.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Post your thoughts on this information, and why?

That is 42 million potential welfare recipients that the neocons and their faithful don't have to foot the bill for. This should be a day of celebration for them.

EDIT: I see RichardE beat me to it. :beer:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

This is simply a red herring of the left. The ethics of these two issues are isolated entirely, though the repercussions may overlap. Either abortion is wrong in a given situation or it isn't. Either the use of birth control in a given situation is wrong or it isn't. However, the use of birth control in no way influences whether an abortion is right or wrong in a given situation, hence: red herring.

Originally posted by: Meuge
That's cause the "moral majority" lives in a different world from the rest of humanity. As a future doctor, I support the doctrine of "harm reduction" as an alternative to impossibility.

As a future doctor, you should know the oath that you're going to take: the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately, since the legalization of abortion on demand, the bolded portion below has been omitted by most medical schools to avoid ethical conflicts.

I swear that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art ? if they desire to learn it ? without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who have instructed me and to pupils who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Well, first and foremost, that's not the modern oath.

Secondly, even if you consider the original Hippocratic Oath, that's not what it says.

The oath says:
I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

A pessary is actually a contraceptive device. It is, in fact, the ancient equivalent of a diaphragm. The reason it's called "abortion" in the oath, is because in the ancient world it was believed that the child comes out of the father complete, and only requires the woman to grow.

So you're saying I should oppose contraception?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


There are laws against "supporting sex for minors"? Do tell...

In any case, this isn't the land of fairies and puppy dogs...there is often no perfect solution. If these kids are going to have sex, it seems like a wise move would be to at least help make sure they aren't getting a disease or pregnant.

Here
I don't mean that sex is always illegal for minors, but it is restricted.
Also, to davesimmons, above posts make it seem like unwanted and hated children are prone to abuse and misuse, and yes, some pro-choicers do argue that point.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

This is simply a red herring of the left. The ethics of these two issues are isolated entirely, though the repercussions may overlap. Either abortion is wrong in a given situation or it isn't. Either the use of birth control in a given situation is wrong or it isn't. However, the use of birth control in no way influences whether an abortion is right or wrong in a given situation, hence: red herring.

You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Post your thoughts on this information, and why?

This ones for you.

By the way if the supposedly "religous" of the US would allow teachers or even themselves to teach boys and girls ways to prevent, including not having sex, pregnancy the abortion rate would likely drop significantly.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

This is simply a red herring of the left. The ethics of these two issues are isolated entirely, though the repercussions may overlap. Either abortion is wrong in a given situation or it isn't. Either the use of birth control in a given situation is wrong or it isn't. However, the use of birth control in no way influences whether an abortion is right or wrong in a given situation, hence: red herring.

You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

They are not dead babies...they are a bunch of cells in a liquid in the body...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Rainsford


There are laws against "supporting sex for minors"? Do tell...

In any case, this isn't the land of fairies and puppy dogs...there is often no perfect solution. If these kids are going to have sex, it seems like a wise move would be to at least help make sure they aren't getting a disease or pregnant.

Here

Also, to davesimmons, above posts make it seem like unwanted and hated children are prone to abuse, and yes, some pro-choicers do argue that point.

That's age of consent...unless the people handing out the pills are also having sex with the kids, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Post your thoughts on this information, and why?

That is 42 million potential welfare recipients that the neocons and their faithful don't have to foot the bill for. This should be a day of celebration for them.

EDIT: I see RichardE beat me to it. :beer:

Celebration, I think not. A distorted at view at best.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

QFT

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

This is simply a red herring of the left. The ethics of these two issues are isolated entirely, though the repercussions may overlap. Either abortion is wrong in a given situation or it isn't. Either the use of birth control in a given situation is wrong or it isn't. However, the use of birth control in no way influences whether an abortion is right or wrong in a given situation, hence: red herring.

You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

They are not dead babies...they are a bunch of cells in a liquid in the body...

I'm using their terms to make a point. I find it very odd, as I've said repeatedly, that people who view abortions as murder of a living person would oppose ANYTHING that might reduce the number of abortions. CycloWizard's dodging about his morality crusade only further makes the point, this isn't about their crusade, it's about dead babies...or at least that's the party line.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

Yes, you are wrong. Sure, there are people for whom that is true, but read my posts about preventative measures.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Rainsford


You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

Yes, you are wrong. Sure, there are people for whom that is true, but read my posts about preventative measures.

Then you support government-financed sex-education courses to be mandatory in every middle school, and that they include a thorough explanation of sex itself, as well as contraception?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That doesn't make sense. It seems like if you are really pro-life, you'd do everything possible to decrease the number of abortions. Sure, you'd engage in a long term battle against Roe v. Wade. But in the meantime, you'd support any other measure that could possibly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

I'm not arguing that this means you SHOULDN'T oppose Roe v. Wade if you are part of the pro-life crowd, I'm saying I find it weird that this is all most of you do. I mean, this isn't just some nebulous moral issue, it's about "saving lives" right?

Well, if you don't like that approach, then I will argue that the use of contraception leads to abortion. Think about it this way: if someone uses contraception and becomes pregnant, they obviously don't want the kid anyway or they wouldn't have been using contraception. As the couple in question is obviously seeking convenience rather than messy entanglements, there's about a 99% chance that they would have an abortion rather than carry the pregnancy and go the adoption route. This is borne out by study after study in which women seeking abortions are questioned as to their motivation to have an abortion. Results of one such study.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Rainsford


You know, I'm starting to think that for some of you guys, this is as much a morality crusade as it is about being pro-life. The fact that you consider perfectly effective and valid methods of decreasing the number of abortions to be a "red herring" tells me all I need to know about your ideology. For you, it's not so much about decreasing the number of abortions as it is about stricking down what you view as an amoral practice. If proper sex education and access to birth control resulted in a 90% drop in abortion numbers, would the pro-life folks feel they had won? Perhaps some of them would, but I don't think you'd be joining them. For you, it's not about the dead babies, it's about a moral crusade.

Or am I wrong...?

Yes, you are wrong. Sure, there are people for whom that is true, but read my posts about preventative measures.

I was actually talking about CycloWizard...he seems to view them as seperate issues, and I said that I think some pro-life folks wouldn't agree with him. However, you seem opposed to preventative measures being encouraged for kids, a particularly bad risk group for abortions, so perhaps I'm not entirely wrong.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Then you support government-financed sex-education courses to be mandatory in every middle school, and that they include a thorough explanation of sex itself, as well as contraception?

No. Only if the parents agree, because we can all agree that that is getting a bit personal for kids.