These Things I Believe...

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
RE: abortion...

For now, I am purposefully not saying how I come down on this, because abortion gets to be one of those issues which deteriorates into one side attacking the other rather than dealing with consequences.

For those against abortion, if the mother/father is financially unable to raise the child, how do you make sure that child is provided for? Do you opt for an entitlement program? Regardless of what you think of the mother, the child is not at fault. Do you say that the child must be born and take some responsibility either collectively or individually or do you suggest the child must be born, and then it's on its own?

Remember I am not talking about those with the means to provide, but lets say a 16 year old without the tools to earn a sufficient living. Rants against her for getting pregnant are irrelevant. For our purposes, this girl IS pregnant and everyone has to deal with that reality. The horse is out of the barn so to speak.

What say you?

That's a good question. My immediate answer is to put the baby up for adoption, although I am not sure of the exact costs associated with it.

Of course, one would ask whether the baby would prefer to be alive and poor rather than dead.

How many children have YOU adopted? Or are you just another one of those holier than thou types who refuses to even make an effort but has a big mouth?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Orsorum

That's a good question. My immediate answer is to put the baby up for adoption, although I am not sure of the exact costs associated with it.

Of course, one would ask whether the baby would prefer to be alive and poor rather than dead.

actually, the demand for adopted children is greater than the number of children up for adoption. So they'd probably be alive and middle-class, not alive and poor.

I'm a big fan of birth control and adoption. I have somewhat similar views on abortion as the OP...I can't really prove it's a human being in the first week or so, but third-trimester abortions should be very illegal.

And before anyone brings up the rape argument, three months is plenty of time to see whether or not someone is pregnant. After that, it's a big grey area for me, I can't say whether or not it's morally right.

I'd prefer that people just use birth control whenever possible, but understand that sometimes circumstances bring about the need for an abortion. I DON'T understand why people get abortions (sometimes) when the baby is just a month or two away from being born. It's just awful.

Ok, show me some statistics that the number of children up for adoption is lower than the demand.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

And what about men who "live on the edge" with their sexual practices? There aren't any consequences for them. Your thoughts are all male-centric. Should only the women suffer because they get pregnant? What about the man involved? I'm sure that if you sterilized promiscuous men you would have a whole lot less abortions than if you sterilized promiscuous women.

Abortion is not an "easy out." It's a hard choice made by a woman whether she wants to have a baby or not. I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive. The fetus is physiologically part of the woman, and she should have the right to do what she wants with her body. Should the male partner have a say in abortion? I would say no, because regardless of emotional or other connections, the partner has no physiological connection to the fetus. Since we have no repurcussions for promiscuous males, we should have no repurcussions for promiscuous females.

If sexual responsibility is problem you have with abortion, that's a pretty weird take on it. Most have to do with whether or not abortion is actually murder.

I want to learn more about this issue. Does anybody know how much more likely a woman who has an abortion is to have more abortions in the future?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

And what about men who "live on the edge" with their sexual practices? There aren't any consequences for them. Your thoughts are all male-centric. Should only the women suffer because they get pregnant? What about the man involved? I'm sure that if you sterilized promiscuous men you would have a whole lot less abortions than if you sterilized promiscuous women.

Abortion is not an "easy out." It's a hard choice made by a woman whether she wants to have a baby or not. I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive. The fetus is physiologically part of the woman, and she should have the right to do what she wants with her body. Should the male partner have a say in abortion? I would say no, because regardless of emotional or other connections, the partner has no physiological connection to the fetus. Since we have no repurcussions for promiscuous males, we should have no repurcussions for promiscuous females.

If sexual responsibility is problem you have with abortion, that's a pretty weird take on it. Most have to do with whether or not abortion is actually murder.

I want to learn more about this issue. Does anybody know how much more likely a woman who has an abortion is to have more abortions in the future?

EXACTLY, it isn't an easy out for any woman but it is HER choice to make, have any of you who oppose it ever been involved with a woman who had one, have you ever talked to a woman who had one? Or are you just self appointed judges?

I am sorry Ororosum, but in this case, i don't think you have any idea about what you are talking about.

Thank you again totalcommand, very well said!

:beer:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive.

wow, so IC centers are all full of dead people...

You really need a better definition of "alive". For example, human beings can't survive in freezing weather without clothes...does that mean that everyone is dead during the winter?

Klixxer:

Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade. (Freundlich, 1998)

there if you want it.

 

[datalink7]

I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive.

If this is the definition of what it is to be a human being, I believe that this definition is flawed. A 1 month old baby cannot survive without help. A 2 year old can't survive without help. Someone in the hospital on a breathing machine cannot survive without constant medical attention.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive.

wow, so IC centers are all full of dead people...

You really need a better definition of "alive". For example, human beings can't survive in freezing weather without clothes...does that mean that everyone is dead during the winter?

Klixxer:

Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade. (Freundlich, 1998)

there if you want it.

Purchase the article or log in?

However, i just asked to illustrate a point, because if you take these numbers and add the number of abortions, what do you get?

So, how many are you going to adopt?

Now, the amount would be huge, every year, and each and every one of these children needs to eat, every day, so are you for raising taxes X 2, letting homosexuals adopt, adopting at LEAST five yourself? If not just STFU because you are not bringing any real solution to the table.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Purchase the article or log in?

However, i just asked to illustrate a point, because if you take these numbers and add the number of abortions, what do you get?

So, how many are you going to adopt?

Now, the amount would be huge, every year, and each and every one of these children needs to eat, every day, so are you for raising taxes X 2, letting homosexuals adopt, adopting at LEAST five yourself? If not just STFU because you are not bringing any real solution to the table.

add the number of third-trimester adoptions, and it doesn't look all that bad. Read my post, I've pointed out that I'm OK with first-trimester, so the idea is that people either abort early or use birth control. It's not like I'm saying to ban abortions entirely, sheesh. Third-trimester abortions aren't as common as the other ones anyway.

As for your suggestions, a and b are fine (though obviously you wouldn't need to raise taxes x2, more like .1%), c is kind of out of the question since I don't want kids. If I were to have kids, I'd probably have one of my own and adopt after that.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive.

wow, so IC centers are all full of dead people...

You really need a better definition of "alive". For example, human beings can't survive in freezing weather without clothes...does that mean that everyone is dead during the winter?

Klixxer:

Since the end of World War II, interest in adoption primarily has focused on healthy, young infants. By the mid-1950's, the demand for healthy infants grew so significantly that it exceeded the number of children available for adoption, a trend that has accelerated with each passing decade. (Freundlich, 1998)

there if you want it.

Where did this idea of dead come from? The fetus cannot be dead, because it was never alive in the first place. So you can't compare a dead person to a fetus. By naturally and normally, I didn't mean to say anything about intubation, etc. I mean both mentally and physically. That is, if the fetus was allowed to grow outside the womb it would grow into a mentally and physically function person.

I think that third trimester abortions should be legal when the mother's health is threatened. The so called "partial-birth abortions" (a name given by conservatives to put as much spin on the procedure as possible) also should be legal when the mother's health is threatened.

 

[MAW1082]

Disgusting.

Yous should read some Ayn Rand . . .

 

[totalcommand]

Care to explain?

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights?and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.

? Ayn Rand

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Disgusting.

Yous should read some Ayn Rand . . .

Care to elaborate?

If that is to what you're referring, interesting. I've never read any Ayn Rand.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
How many children have YOU adopted? Or are you just another one of those holier than thou types who refuses to even make an effort but has a big mouth?

Seeing as how I'm 20 years old, single, and in school, no, I haven't had the opportunity to adopt, and as far as I know I'm able to have children naturally and I plan on doing so. You done with the ad hominems yet?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

And what about men who "live on the edge" with their sexual practices? There aren't any consequences for them. Your thoughts are all male-centric. Should only the women suffer because they get pregnant? What about the man involved? I'm sure that if you sterilized promiscuous men you would have a whole lot less abortions than if you sterilized promiscuous women.

Abortion is not an "easy out." It's a hard choice made by a woman whether she wants to have a baby or not. I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive. The fetus is physiologically part of the woman, and she should have the right to do what she wants with her body. Should the male partner have a say in abortion? I would say no, because regardless of emotional or other connections, the partner has no physiological connection to the fetus. Since we have no repurcussions for promiscuous males, we should have no repurcussions for promiscuous females.

If sexual responsibility is problem you have with abortion, that's a pretty weird take on it. Most have to do with whether or not abortion is actually murder.

I want to learn more about this issue. Does anybody know how much more likely a woman who has an abortion is to have more abortions in the future?

Here's a thought, men do bear consequences for their actions, child support ring a bell?

And, again, by your definition of "alive", babies under the age of 2 aren't alive. Should a mother be allowed to do what she wishes with that child up until that age?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
EXACTLY, it isn't an easy out for any woman but it is HER choice to make, have any of you who oppose it ever been involved with a woman who had one, have you ever talked to a woman who had one? Or are you just self appointed judges?

I am sorry Ororosum, but in this case, i don't think you have any idea about what you are talking about.

Thank you again totalcommand, very well said!

:beer:

I've talked with women who've had them, yes, had some close friends get one. It's a hellish thing to go through.

And why do I not know what I'm talking about?

I find it hilarious that this has turned into an abortion thread. Oh well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Man, I thought this thread would be more flame-worthy.

This was the kiss of death

The way this thread deteriorated is also why I am reluctant to give my opinions on abortion. It's not because I am concerned what others think, but because it always deteriorates into a "what the hell do you think you are thinking" flame fest. In other words, useless.

Ahh well perhaps I can touch of some other points, which will almost certainly lead to chaos along another road. Yep, my work is almost done

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
ABORTION: If I were a woman I would want to be able to choose when and where I have a child.

Its called Birth control, if you were not raped or the pregnancy does not jeapordize your health and you still opt for an abortion it is my feeling that you should be immediately steralized so that you cannot make the same mistake twice, try that out on a few people and you will see the amount of abortions decrease and the use of birth control go way up too many people are given an easy out and don't even have to fathom dealing with the consequences, I have known far too many women who carelessly got pregnant, had abortions only to continue "living on the edge" with their sexual practices...had they been steralized after the first birth control abortion then it wouldn't matter and if the fear of never having children was in them before they were promiscuous I am sure they would have been far more careful in the first place.

And what about men who "live on the edge" with their sexual practices? There aren't any consequences for them. Your thoughts are all male-centric. Should only the women suffer because they get pregnant? What about the man involved? I'm sure that if you sterilized promiscuous men you would have a whole lot less abortions than if you sterilized promiscuous women.

Abortion is not an "easy out." It's a hard choice made by a woman whether she wants to have a baby or not. I'll repeat it again, unless the fetus can survive naturally and normally outside the body, it's not alive. The fetus is physiologically part of the woman, and she should have the right to do what she wants with her body. Should the male partner have a say in abortion? I would say no, because regardless of emotional or other connections, the partner has no physiological connection to the fetus. Since we have no repurcussions for promiscuous males, we should have no repurcussions for promiscuous females.

If sexual responsibility is problem you have with abortion, that's a pretty weird take on it. Most have to do with whether or not abortion is actually murder.

I want to learn more about this issue. Does anybody know how much more likely a woman who has an abortion is to have more abortions in the future?

Here's a thought, men do bear consequences for their actions, child support ring a bell?

And, again, by your definition of "alive", babies under the age of 2 aren't alive. Should a mother be allowed to do what she wishes with that child up until that age?

Child support is just a financial consequence. The woman has to bear, financial, emotional, and physical consequences. A woman's whole life is changed by having a baby. If the father leaves, all he has to do is pay child support and go impregnate another woman. The woman bears the responsibility of bringing the baby to term, not the man. Give me some example of how the consequences for a man even compare to the consequences of a woman. Pregnancy is a female problem, not a male one, and until it is treated that way we will not be being fair to women.

Read the whole thread before you belittle me:

"Where did this idea of dead come from? The fetus cannot be dead, because it was never alive in the first place. So you can't compare a dead person to a fetus. By naturally and normally, I didn't mean to say anything about intubation, etc. I mean both mentally and physically. That is, if the fetus was allowed to grow outside the womb it would grow into a mentally and physically function person."

So a two year old and any baby less than two is a mentally and physically functional person. As for a fetus, take a look at this quote - it's very enlightening.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights?and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.

? Ayn Rand

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Man, I thought this thread would be more flame-worthy.

This was the kiss of death

The way this thread deteriorated is also why I am reluctant to give my opinions on abortion. It's not because I am concerned what others think, but because it always deteriorates into a "what the hell do you think you are thinking" flame fest. In other words, useless.

Ahh well perhaps I can touch of some other points, which will almost certainly lead to chaos along another road. Yep, my work is almost done

Hehe, I just ignore the personal attacks and try to look for actual substance. If it ain't there, I don't respond.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Man, I thought this thread would be more flame-worthy.

This was the kiss of death

The way this thread deteriorated is also why I am reluctant to give my opinions on abortion. It's not because I am concerned what others think, but because it always deteriorates into a "what the hell do you think you are thinking" flame fest. In other words, useless.

Ahh well perhaps I can touch of some other points, which will almost certainly lead to chaos along another road. Yep, my work is almost done

lol

C'mon, touch some of the other points.. you know you wanna.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

Cheers!
Nate

I think that an extensive view of mainstream media would definately be in order.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Dangit, now I'm tired. What other areas should I expand on to give you an idea of my political affiliation?

Cheers!
Nate

I think that an extensive view of mainstream media would definately be in order.

How much more extensive do you want?

 

[Orsorum]

Bump.

 

[Train]

Not sure if anyone has stated this yet, I just skimmed this thread so far.

Why is it when a Pregnant woman is murdered/killed its always charged as a double murder? How do we know she wasnt on her way to get an abortion? A single murder vs a double murder is often the difference between 25 years in prison or the electric chair, even if the murderer didnt know she was pregnant, s/he still gets charged with the double.

And why is it so shocking to the whole country when a mother drowns her children? If a child Isn't "sentient" until up to a year after birth, its should be ok if the child isnt that old yet right? or when the pregnant girl puts her newborn in a plastic bag and throws it in a dumpster, just a "late term" abortion, right? How come she got arrested? whats up with that?

Its funny how some ideas just crumble in the face of elementary logic.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Train
Not sure if anyone has stated this yet, I just skimmed this thread so far.

Why is it when a Pregnant woman is murdered/killed its always charged as a double murder? How do we know she wasnt on her way to get an abortion? A single murder vs a double murder is often the difference between 25 years in prison or the electric chair, even if the murderer didnt know she was pregnant, s/he still gets charged with the double.

And why is it so shocking to the whole country when a mother drowns her children? If a child Isn't "sentient" until up to a year after birth, its should be ok if the child isnt that old yet right? or when the pregnant girl puts her newborn in a plastic bag and throws it in a dumpster, just a "late term" abortion, right? How come she got arrested? whats up with that?

Its funny how some ideas just crumble in the face of elementary logic.

And if a guy gets a girl pregnant and he does not want to be a father, why is it legal for the women to be able to abort the fetus but not the father? It is some of his DNA after all and would be legally responsible for child supoprt payments.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Train
Not sure if anyone has stated this yet, I just skimmed this thread so far.

Why is it when a Pregnant woman is murdered/killed its always charged as a double murder? How do we know she wasnt on her way to get an abortion? A single murder vs a double murder is often the difference between 25 years in prison or the electric chair, even if the murderer didnt know she was pregnant, s/he still gets charged with the double.

And why is it so shocking to the whole country when a mother drowns her children? If a child Isn't "sentient" until up to a year after birth, its should be ok if the child isnt that old yet right? or when the pregnant girl puts her newborn in a plastic bag and throws it in a dumpster, just a "late term" abortion, right? How come she got arrested? whats up with that?

Its funny how some ideas just crumble in the face of elementary logic.

And if a guy gets a girl pregnant and he does not want to be a father, why is it legal for the women to be able to abort the fetus but not the father? It is some of his DNA after all and would be legally responsible for child supoprt payments.

Funny how all that works.