U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:11 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,890,144 times
Reputation: 3847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And, for those of you who think that women are always making rational decisions regarding abortions, look at this... Women's Suicide Rates Highest After Abortion, New Study
... which could very well be because of all the wingnuts bashing and villifying them. (As you probably know, a correlation is not tantamount to a cause. ) There would be fewer suicides and fewer abortions if certain hypocritical do-gooders would just keep their traps shut every once in a while.

Anyone can make irrational decisions. Please don't tell me men don't make irrational decisions, okay? Yet I doubt you would enact legislation making their choices for them. The essence of liberty is the ability to make a decision of which others disapprove, an arguably irrational one -- and take responsibility for it. If you start citing irrationality as a basis for taking away people's choices, you might as well take away everyone's choice in everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
My views are not about taking away a woman's right to have an abortion in the first trimester or when their life is at risk if the pregnancy continues. They ARE about ensuring that women are making INFORMED decisions. They ARE also about protecting kids that are viable and/or those who can think and feel. Period.
*Shrug* You still view women as mindless vessels. Being magnanimous, you are apparently willing to give the vessel some rights, but for the most part, you would make the vessel's interests subordinate to that of everyone else. That the vessel thinks and feels apparently does not bother you. That the vessel is a body that's being used for someone political agenda apparently doesn't either. You are willing to permit the vessel to save its life (of course, it's reusable), but you don't care about any situation in which the vessel may end up in a wheelchair as a result of the pregnancy. And all that concern about the children is, if you forgive me, merely a pretext.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:17 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,890,144 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
However, by the 2nd trimester, if it's only because she doesn't WANT to have the child, it should NOT be permitted.
Again, why? A fetus at 13 weeks is neither viable nor has the neurological complexity to feel anything. Considering that a pregnancy is rarely confirmed before the 8th week, and that an abortion may not be performed on the same day the woman requests it, you are leaving an awfully brief window for women to make up their minds (and for the fathers, if their input is sought, to make up theirs). And here you are, complaining about women making hurried, rash decisions without due reflection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,602,494 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Please don't tell me men don't make irrational decisions, okay? Yet I doubt you would enact legislation making their choices for them.
If children grew in our bodies as well, I would. Don't sit here and tell me I'm a sexist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
The essence of liberty is the ability to make a decision of which others disapprove, an arguably irrational one -- and take responsibility for it. If you start citing irrationality as a basis for taking away people's choices, you might as well take away everyone's choice in everything.

*Shrug* You still view women as mindless vessels. Being magnanimous, you are apparently willing to give the vessel some rights, but for the most part, you would make the vessel's interests subordinate to that of everyone else. That the vessel thinks and feels apparently does not bother you. That the vessel is a body that's being used for someone political agenda apparently doesn't either. You are willing to permit the vessel to save its life (of course, it's reusable), but you don't care about any situation in which the vessel may end up in a wheelchair as a result of the pregnancy. And all that concern about the children is, if you forgive me, merely a pretext.
No woman who actually knows me has ever told me I think of her as a mindless vessel.

There are people out there who think any woman who has an abortion deserves a needle in her arm. I am actually MODERATE on this issue.

If a child is more than a "lump of cells," HE or SHE deserves protection as well. PERIOD.

You are suggesting to me that women should be able to do whatever they please even when the child is viable (third trimester abortions as long as they are willing to pay for it...and I specifically said I meant ONLY when the child is viable). That is an extremely careless and selfish attitude. If you are a parent, you should know you'd lay down your life for your CHILD....if the only consequence was being in a wheelchair, you'd do it. Anything else is beyond cold, cruel, and heartless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,602,494 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Again, why? A fetus at 13 weeks is neither viable nor has the neurological complexity to feel anything. Considering that a pregnancy is rarely confirmed before the 8th week, and that an abortion may not be performed on the same day the woman requests it, you are leaving an awfully brief window for women to make up their minds (and for the fathers, if their input is sought, to make up theirs). And here you are, complaining about women making hurried, rash decisions without due reflection.
Because, IIRC, I've seen studies regarding thinking and feeling occurring towards the beginning of (or at least towards the middle of) the second trimester. It seems like a more logical place to draw the line. If I could find that study again and it showed the exact week, I'd say that's fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:47 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,890,144 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If children grew in our bodies as well, I would. Don't sit here and tell me I'm a sexist.
Singling out women as needing special "protection" (implicit in taking away their power to make their own medical decisions in consultation with a physician) is very clearly sexist. What difference does it make where the child is growing? None whatsoever, except that a fetus is parasitizing another organism. Are you willing to compel men to donate their organs to their children? Don't say you'd donate yours -- tell me whether you would force other people to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
No woman who actually knows me has ever told me I think of her as a mindless vessel.
Of course not. I imagine it would be very difficult for you to treat an actual person that you have to look in the face in this manner. By contrast, it is very easy to treat women as mindless vessels when you think of them as a mass of stereotypical two-dimensional characters, not real people. I once read about a shocking statistic from France in early 1940's. These statistics are dated, since this was before women gained the right to vote in France, and before birth control was legalized, but they are still useful to the extent that they expose the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion stance. The statistics were as follows: Over 75% of voting men believed that abortion should be illegal and criminally punished in every case and regardless of the circumstances or the stage of the pregnancy; over 50% of all pregnancies in France ended in abortion; of those abortions, over 80% were by married women; of those married women, nearly 90% of abortions were done with the knowledge, assistance and consent (and often, encouragement) of the husband; of the unmarried women, nearly all abortions were done with the knowledge, assistance and consent of both parents. So there you have it. Men who think abortions should be illegal, but who are totally okay when their wives or daughters do it. Because if it was your daughter who would end up in a wheelchair and wanted to have an abortion, I doubt very much you'd lecture her on the need to protect the fetus from her selfish desire not to be an invalid; and you wouldn't dismissively call being in a wheelchair "the only consequence". Dehumanization (in this case, masquerading as a false concern) is at the very heart of oppression; indeed, oppression depends on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
There are people out there who think any woman who has an abortion deserves a needle in her arm. I am actually MODERATE on this issue.
So what, I should be thankful? There are people who think you should die for being an infidel; should you thank any "moderates" who believe you should only be a second-class citizen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If a child is more than a "lump of cells," HE or SHE deserves protection as well. PERIOD.
Not when it comes at the cost of using another person's body against his will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
You are suggesting to me that women should be able to do whatever they please even when the child is viable (third trimester abortions as long as they are willing to pay for it...and I specifically said I meant ONLY when the child is viable).
I said women should be able to follow their physician's recommendations. I simply don't believe the morality police should legislate medicine -- that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
That is an extremely careless and selfish attitude. If you are a parent, you should know you'd lay down your life for your CHILD....if the only consequence was being in a wheelchair, you'd do it. Anything else is beyond cold, cruel, and heartless.
It is not for the state to force people to be selfless, self-sacrificing and kind. I would lay down my life for my child -- but that does not give me any right whatsoever to force someone else to die or to become disabled; or to subject them to punishment (with the child as the instrument, to boot) for not having the kinds of feelings about their pregnancies that social convention dictates. It is cold, cruel and heartless to refuse to donate organs even after one's death -- but somehow I doubt you would harvest organs by force or institute mandatory blood and bone marrow donations. Would you? What you would do for your fetus or your child isn't a yardstick for how others should be forced to act, especially when medical decisions are involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:50 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,890,144 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Because, IIRC, I've seen studies regarding thinking and feeling occurring towards the beginning of (or at least towards the middle of) the second trimester. It seems like a more logical place to draw the line. If I could find that study again and it showed the exact week, I'd say that's fine.
An early 2nd trimester fetus can react to loud noises or pressure. I can see how activists equate "react" with "think" or "feel", but that's not the scientific reality. A non-viable fetus exhibits very primitive neurological responses, even more primitive than people in PVS with massive brain damage. The scientific consensus is that the ability to feel pain develops between 26 and 29 weeks, and "thinking" in the sense of self-awareness much later than that. Besides, it is still a fetus that's not viable. Again -- based on the fact that people suffering from organ failure think and feel -- would you force people to donate organs to them? By the way, organ failure is one of the common risks of pregnancy. Now, if you force a woman to continue her pregnancy and her kidneys fail -- should someone be required to donate her his? And if not, why not?

Last edited by Redisca; 03-21-2009 at 05:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,602,494 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Singling out women as needing special "protection" (implicit in taking away their power to make their own medical decisions in consultation with a physician) is very clearly sexist. What difference does it make where the child is growing? None whatsoever, except that a fetus is parasitizing another organism. Are you willing to compel men to donate their organs to their children? Don't say you'd donate yours -- tell me whether you would force other people to do so.
I would never compel a woman to donate her organs to her children except in that case when the child is in her womb.

Except in the case of rape, she DID choose to engage in an action knowing it could result in a child that she would have to "donate her organ to." Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not like the woman didn't have any choice before becoming pregnant. THAT is the time for the choice.

I even have no problem with first trimester abortion as I've said repeatedly...another time for a choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Of course not. I imagine it would be very difficult for you to treat an actual person that you have to look in the face in this manner.
That's funny...I know many WOMEN who know I am against abortion. I also know many women who themselves are against abortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
By contrast, it is very easy to treat women as mindless vessels when you think of them as a mass of stereotypical two-dimensional characters, not real people. I once read about a shocking statistic from France in early 1940's. These statistics are dated, since this was before women gained the right to vote in France, and before birth control was legalized, but they are still useful to the extent that they expose the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion stance. The statistics were as follows: Over 75% of voting men believed that abortion should be illegal and criminally punished in every case and regardless of the circumstances or the stage of the pregnancy; over 50% of all pregnancies in France ended in abortion; of those abortions, over 80% were by married women; of those married women, nearly 90% of abortions were done with the knowledge, assistance and consent (and often, encouragement) of the husband; of the unmarried women, nearly all abortions were done with the knowledge, assistance and consent of both parents. So there you have it. Men who think abortions should be illegal, but who are totally okay when their wives or daughters do it. Because if it was your daughter who would end up in a wheelchair and wanted to have an abortion, I doubt very much you'd lecture her on the need to protect the fetus from her selfish desire not to be an invalid; and you wouldn't dismissively call being in a wheelchair "the only consequence". Dehumanization (in this case, masquerading as a false concern) is at the very heart of oppression; indeed, oppression depends on it.
I'm not sure what I'd do if that it was my daughter in that position. But....IF a fetus can think or feel, I view it as a PERSON in every way.

If the LIFE of the mother is at risk, I'll allow the mother to abort the child because there is no use in killing TWO people (mother and child) when you could kill only one. If the kid has severe abnormalities (and I mean REALLY severe), I'm fine with sparing the child from lifelong suffering.

In no other case am I OK with it once the fetus can think or feel at all.

I'd at least LIKE to think that I'd choose my daughter in a wheelchair as long as my grandchild would be born healthy. (Because my grandchild would be important to me as well.) People live happy lives in wheelchairs...it's certainly not ideal. But it doesn't justify KILLING someone else. Since I view the child as a PERSON once it can think or feel, they are equal and two living people are better to me than one alive and one dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
So what, I should be thankful? There are people who think you should die for being an infidel; should you thank any "moderates" who believe you should only be a second-class citizen?
Having such extreme views doesn't get you very far. Laws against partial birth abortion and third trimester abortions already exist. You've made it clear you think they should be permitted. These types of strong opinions just make it LESS likely for legislative bodies and/or the general public to give you ANY legal right to abort your child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I said women should be able to follow their physician's recommendations. I simply don't believe the morality police should legislate medicine -- that's all.
This is another area where we differ...I don't view this entirely as a medical issue. The fact is it's FAR more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
It is not for the state to force people to be selfless, self-sacrificing and kind. I would lay down my life for my child -- but that does not give me any right whatsoever to force someone else to die or to become disabled; or to subject them to punishment (with the child as the instrument, to boot) for not having the kinds of feelings about their pregnancies that social convention dictates. It is cold, cruel and heartless to refuse to donate organs even after one's death -- but somehow I doubt you would harvest organs by force or institute mandatory blood and bone marrow donations. Would you? What you would do for your fetus or your child isn't a yardstick for how others should be forced to act, especially when medical decisions are involved.
I've never donated bone marrow, but I do donate blood from time to time and I have decided to donate my organs when I die.

I wouldn't force any of those things on anyone. But you're not getting my point about how, 99.9999% of the time, the mother could have chosen to avoid becoming pregnant altogether.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-21-2009 at 06:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,602,494 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
An early 2nd trimester fetus can react to loud noises or pressure. I can see how activists equate "react" with "think" or "feel", but that's not the scientific reality. A non-viable fetus exhibits very primitive neurological responses, even more primitive than people in PVS with massive brain damage. The scientific consensus is that the ability to feel pain develops between 26 and 29 weeks, and "thinking" in the sense of self-awareness much later than that. Besides, it is still a fetus that's not viable. Again -- based on the fact that people suffering from organ failure think and feel -- would you force people to donate organs to them? By the way, organ failure is one of the common risks of pregnancy. Now, if you force a woman to continue her pregnancy and her kidneys fail -- should someone be required to donate her his? And if not, why not?
Primitive neurological responses are enough for me. That indicates there is a brain that can do something. You keep stressing "not viable" but if a child has ANY ability to feel pain or if it has a brain that can do anything at all, an abortion should be out of the question other than in the rare cases I've outlined.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-21-2009 at 07:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 07:59 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,890,144 times
Reputation: 3847
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Except in the case of rape, she DID choose to engage in an action knowing it could result in a child that she would have to "donate her organ to." Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not like the woman didn't have any choice before becoming pregnant. THAT is the time for the choice.
So it's about punishment, then? Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If a fetus is a person, what does it matter if it was conceived in rape? If you want to make an abortion dependent on the mother's conduct, then it's clearly not based on the supposed sanctity of the fetus' life -- it's based on the desire to regulate a woman's sexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
That's funny...I know many WOMEN who know I am against abortion. I also know many women who themselves are against abortion.
And I know many women who are sexist and even misogynistic. And many men who are not. What's your point? That because some woman agrees with your views, I should too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I'm not sure what I'd do if that it was my daughter in that position. But....IF a fetus can think or feel, I view it as a PERSON in every way. [...] Primitive neurological responses are enough for me. That indicates there is a brain. You keep stressing "not viable" but if a child has ANY ability to feel pain, an abortion should be out of the question other than in the rare cases I've outlined.
I'm sorry, but that's extremely unscientific. A primitive response to stimuli does not indicate there is a brain, unless you choose to define "brain" so extensively, it would include even single cells. Nor is the presence of a brain dispositive. There are organisms with brains that can neither think nor feel anything. By the way -- unicellular organisms respond to stimuli, but they have no brains and can neither think nor feel. Even plants respond to stimuli, but they have no brains. A 12-week fetus cannot think and it cannot feel. It has no awareness. And even if it did -- it is still a parasite, and another organism, whether she "chose" to get pregnant or not, should not be compelled to carry it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If the LIFE of the mother is at risk, I'll allow the mother to abort the child because there is no use in killing TWO people (mother and child) when you could kill only one.
The fact that the mother will die does not necessarily mean the fetus will die. Now, I suppose you would not allow for an abortion even if it would save the life of the mother?

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If the kid has severe abnormalities (and I mean REALLY severe), I'm fine with sparing the child from lifelong suffering.
I'd at least LIKE to think that I'd choose my daughter in a wheelchair as long as my grandchild would be born healthy. (Because my grandchild would be important to me as well.) People live happy lives in wheelchairs...it's certainly not ideal. But it doesn't justify KILLING someone else. Since I view the child as a PERSON once it can think or feel, they are equal and two living people are better to me than one alive and one dead.
You not only view a fetus as a person -- you view it as a more important person than a fully developed human being. You would abort a fetus with severe abnormalities to spare it suffering -- but you would force women to continue their pregnancies even if it would make them severely disabled (because, presumably, they "chose" to have a little fun with their slutty, slutty bodies and now deserve all the suffering that can be heaped on them). You may think being in a wheelchair is just fine and dandy -- but that's not a justification to use the coercive power of the government to put other people in wheelchairs just because you think it's appropriate. This is the fundamental difference in our views: you believe proto-children are more important than adults, because they are innocent and adults aren't (they've had sex! sinful, slutty sex!), and therefore, an adult's interest even in not being disabled should be subordinated to what you believe to be in the interest of the fetus. I don't care about sin or innocence, and thus I consider fully developed human beings -- virgins or not, married or not -- to take precedence over embryos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Having such extreme views doesn't get you very far. Laws against partial birth abortion and third trimester abortions already exist. You've made it clear you think they should be permitted. These types of strong opinions just make it LESS likely for legislative bodies and/or the general public to give you ANY legal right to abort your child.
This is one of the most favorite techniques of extremists: promote an absolutely insane law or policy (for example, a law that makes no exception for saving the life or health of the mother when the procedure in question is almost always employed to save the life or health of the mother) and use it to force opponents to compromise their views in order to retain SOME legal right. Just an analogy: if someone proposed a law that made it illegal for you to be alive, at the end of the day maybe you'd accept living in a concentration camp -- hey, at least you got to keep something. Again, just an analogy, but the technique employed is the same. This is a trick -- and I won't bite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
This is another area where we differ...I don't view this entirely as a medical issue. The fact is it's FAR more than that.
And herein lies the problem. Choosing not to view a medical procedure as a medical issue allows people to remain ignorant of its crucial medical aspects and to base their opinions on fantasies that have no basis in science (such as equating a primitive response to stimuli to "thinking"). It also puts doctors in an impossible position of having to breach their duty not to inflict harm on a patient or break a law enacted by a group of zealots that chose to think medicine irrelevant. This is precisely the danger that lies in legislating medicine. And if you think this issue is limited to abortion, think again. As I previously said, the spectre of a slippery slope is always there. Allow ignorant activists dictate to doctors how to practice medicine in any aspect, and you have allowed it in principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I've never donated bone marrow, but I do donate blood from time to time and I have decided to donate my organs when I die.
Why not while you live? Sure, living with 1 kidney is not ideal, but you can still be happy. In fact, if somewhere there is a person for whom you are a perfect match, you are killing that person by not donating. Again, shouldn't you be forced to donate? Because if it's only because a woman chose to have sex that you would force her to donate her body to another, then it's entirely about retribution, and nothing else. After all, is that potential recipient who needs your kidney not a person? Can he not think and feel? Did he choose to be dying? What sense is there in not forcing you to support his continued existence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,602,494 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
So it's about punishment, then? Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If a fetus is a person, what does it matter if it was conceived in rape? If you want to make an abortion dependent on the mother's conduct, then it's clearly not based on the supposed sanctity of the fetus' life -- it's based on the desire to regulate a woman's sexuality.
The mother should have the first trimester in the case of rape to do that, just as a woman who had consensual sex would. After the first trimester, rape/no rape makes no difference to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I'm sorry, but that's extremely unscientific. A primitive response to stimuli does not indicate there is a brain, unless you choose to define "brain" so extensively, it would include even single cells. Nor is the presence of a brain dispositive. There are organisms with brains that can neither think nor feel anything. By the way -- unicellular organisms respond to stimuli, but they have no brains and can neither think nor feel. Even plants respond to stimuli, but they have no brains. A 12-week fetus cannot think and it cannot feel. It has no awareness. And even if it did -- it is still a parasite, and another organism, whether she "chose" to get pregnant or not, should not be compelled to carry it.
IIRC the brain begins developing at something like 6 weeks along with the spine.

As to the bolded part of your post, you are VERY glad I don't know you and that you're not saying this to me in person.

There is a fundamental difference between INTENTIONALLY KILLING another human being and simply standing by and choosing to not donate an organ, etc. and let it die on its own. An abortion is an INTENTIONAL KILLING. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE MOTHER IS INCONVENIENCED!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
The fact that the mother will die does not necessarily mean the fetus will die. Now, I suppose you would not allow for an abortion even if it would save the life of the mother?
If the fetus is not viable and the mother dies, to the best of my knowledge, the fetus will die very shortly after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
You not only view a fetus as a person -- you view it as a more important person than a fully developed human being. You would abort a fetus with severe abnormalities to spare it suffering -- but you would force women to continue their pregnancies even if it would make them severely disabled (because, presumably, they "chose" to have a little fun with their slutty, slutty bodies and now deserve all the suffering that can be heaped on them). You may think being in a wheelchair is just fine and dandy -- but that's not a justification to use the coercive power of the government to put other people in wheelchairs just because you think it's appropriate. This is the fundamental difference in our views: you believe proto-children are more important than adults, because they are innocent and adults aren't (they've had sex! sinful, slutty sex!), and therefore, an adult's interest even in not being disabled should be subordinated to what you believe to be in the interest of the fetus. I don't care about sin or innocence, and thus I consider fully developed human beings -- virgins or not, married or not -- to take precedence over embryos.
This has nothing to do with sin. I don't feel sins should be legislated. And I have "sinned" many times myself (including sexually).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
This is one of the most favorite techniques of extremists: promote an absolutely insane law or policy (for example, a law that makes no exception for saving the life or health of the mother when the procedure in question is almost always employed to save the life or health of the mother) and use it to force opponents to compromise their views in order to retain SOME legal right. Just an analogy: if someone proposed a law that made it illegal for you to be alive, at the end of the day maybe you'd accept living in a concentration camp -- hey, at least you got to keep something. Again, just an analogy, but the technique employed is the same. This is a trick -- and I won't bite.
An "insane law or policy"? Third trimester and partial birth abortions being illegal is far from "insane"? FAR.... The percent of people who believe that they should be legal is probably less than 10% I'd guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
And herein lies the problem. Choosing not to view a medical procedure as a medical issue allows people to remain ignorant of its crucial medical aspects and to base their opinions on fantasies that have no basis in science (such as equating a primitive response to stimuli to "thinking"). It also puts doctors in an impossible position of having to breach their duty not to inflict harm on a patient or break a law enacted by a group of zealots that chose to think medicine irrelevant. This is precisely the danger that lies in legislating medicine. And if you think this issue is limited to abortion, think again. As I previously said, the spectre of a slippery slope is always there. Allow ignorant activists dictate to doctors how to practice medicine in any aspect, and you have allowed it in principle.
You argue that abortion should be legal at a stage in the fetus' development where you admitted it CAN think. That negates anything else you said here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Why not while you live? Sure, living with 1 kidney is not ideal, but you can still be happy. In fact, if somewhere there is a person for whom you are a perfect match, you are killing that person by not donating. Again, shouldn't you be forced to donate? Because if it's only because a woman chose to have sex that you would force her to donate her body to another, then it's entirely about retribution, and nothing else. After all, is that potential recipient who needs your kidney not a person? Can he not think and feel? Did he choose to be dying? What sense is there in not forcing you to support his continued existence?
Because me refusing to support his continued existence is not an ACTION that involves me INTENTIONALLY KILLING him.

This "parasitic" relationship you speak of....while it may end medically after birth, it doesn't effectively end after birth. Would you support a mother having the right to simply kill her child for X amount of time after birth because it is an inconvenience to her? What about fathers (at that point, a father LEGALLY has just as much say)? Surely you wouldn't support a MAN getting to make any choice involving HIS child?

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-21-2009 at 08:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04 PM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top