NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I support a woman’s Right to choose, to a point...

But more to what I would like to learn from those who espouse the Woman's Right to choose, even up to and including "Partial-Birth" Abortion, is when, if ever, do they consider the unborn Babies Right to Life?

Let me explain...

We have all seen the premature Births of Babies all of the time that survive and become productive members of Society, now I have no studies to cite how early it is that most are able to survive from, but I believe we can all agree that it happens, right?

So, if an unborn Baby could survive out of the Mother Womb, why are they given ANY CHOICE in whether it's Life should be terminated or not?

Have we somehow given Women the voice of God simply because they are pregnant?

I believe there should be a point where, if a Mother decides on terminating a Pregnancy after a certain point, then they should have to "pass" the child in a manner that it may be given a chance to survive on its own.

That is how I feel about Abortion.

I am curious as to when others feel a Baby HAS a RIGHT to LIFE?

Regards,
Gaar

You'll have to find someone who believes that late term abortion is fine and isnt a liar or an idiot first.

Otherwise, you walk a fine line between honesty and the strawman yourself.

You'll have to find someone who believes that late term abortion is fine and isnt a liar or an idiot first.

Otherwise, you walk a fine line between honesty and the strawman yourself.

How is that?

I havent come across many reasonable people anywhere that don't have moral reservations about late term abortion.

Throwing a big fit about "WHEN DOES THE BABY'S RIGHT TO LIVE COME IN TO PLAY" serves the purposes of the anti-abortion mob by implying that pro choice people have a callous disregard for the lives of babies.

This administration disapproves of any and all Abortion. Babies are lives and Almighty God does not approve of murder. If need be all babies may become property of the State in order to circumvent this elusive problem.

-President Greg Wagmart Blush "Dooya",
Launderbridge, D.C.

This administration disapproves of any and all Abortion. Babies are lives and Almighty God does not approve of murder. If need be all babies may become property of the State in order to circumvent this elusive problem.

-President Greg Wagmart Blush "Dooya",
Launderbridge, D.C.

Okay...

Well, I think it's the woman's right, but she should definately think it over before doing it.

I havent come across many reasonable people anywhere that don't have moral reservations about late term abortion.

Throwing a big fit about "WHEN DOES THE BABY'S RIGHT TO LIVE COME IN TO PLAY" serves the purposes of the anti-abortion mob by implying that pro choice people have a callous disregard for the lives of babies.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent... But it is how I feel.

And I suppose that could be viewed as a hypocritical stance while at the same time espousing the Woman's Right, but again I have reconciled that with myself...

I believe that a Woman has up through the end of the Second Trimester and then it should have been decided. After that, there has to be consideration given to the Baby.

If I am a Hypocrite for that, then I am a Hypocrite!

And while YOU say that "most reasonable people" recognize Late Term as wrong, didn't some fairly reasonable people just overturn the ban on said proceedures here in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar

<sigh>

Do we really have to go through this again?
Couldn't you just read one of the gazillion threads on this? :headbang:

I'll try to briefly explain at least my view, but I'll eschew some of your inflammatory rhetoric.

I am eminently comfortable with the constitutional scheme of Roe v. Wadeand its progeny. The three main elements of the orginal scheme are:
1. During the first stage of pregnancy (roughly the first trimester), the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to woman and the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician

2. For the stage subsequent (i.e., after approximately the end of the first trimester), the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health

3. For the stage subsequent to viability of the fetus, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother


This constitutional scheme has been modified over time (particularly as to the second prong), but remains essential intact. It is both legally and ethically sound.

A woman has a right to abortion throughout her pregnancy. That right never goes away. At the point of viability, the interests of the State in the fetus (or the interests of the fetus -- however you wish to consider it) begin to have sufficient compelling weight to modify or override the woman's right. Countervailing factors such as the life or health of the mother (or severe fetal abnormalities, fetal death, rape or incest of a minor, etc.) tip the scales back in favor of the woman's choice.

Personally, I trust women and their doctors as moral agents best capable of weighing the contervailing factors and making a choice regarding pregnancies -- so I would not prohibit later term abortions.

BTW, at least in the US, later term abortions are exceedingly rare.

As I have posted before, from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) re abortions in 2001:

Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks.

A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.


Also, from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html) (2003):

Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).

More than half of abortions are performed before 9 weeks after the last menstrual period, or within 5 weeks of the first missed period.

Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks, when the fetus may be viable.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent... But it is how I feel.

And I suppose that could be viewed as a hypocritical stance while at the same time espousing the Woman's Right, but again I have reconciled that with myself...

I believe that a Woman has up through the end of the Second Trimester and then it should have been decided. After that, there has to be consideration given to the Baby.

If I am a Hypocrite for that, then I am a Hypocrite!

And while YOU say that "most reasonable people" recognize Late Term as wrong, didn't some fairly reasonable people just overturn the ban on said proceedures here in the U.S.?

Regards,
Gaar

Reasonable people... run the united states..... ? ? ?

In any event, I believe that so long as a fetus is a fetus, it is not a human being and as such the entire concept of 'rights' does not apply. When an unborn human baby has developed, that unborn human baby has rights &c..

I dont know precisely when that occurs, so I support unconditionally abortion during the first trimester and on the information i'm told, I suppose up until the end of the second. After that a human being has probably developed and a woman has had a reasonable ammount of time to make her decision.

As far as the overturn of the ban on late term abortion in the US:
The legal precedents demanded it, and it was such a fantastically rare procedure to begin with that the ban was essentially trivial and served only as a possible precedent for further and more draconian anti-abortion legislation and judicial decisions.

As far as the precedents which demanded it be overturned, essentially the bill did not contain a provision for cases in which the life of the mother would be at risk, which as it stands are the only cases in which late term abortions are performed, hence the ban being trivial.

*snip*

Seems the "basis" for your argument is that "because there are so few, it's ok..."

Sorry, I don't buy that argument...

Would you say euthanasia was an "ok" option for "others" to decide for someone else, as long as only 0.08% of the Population choose it as an option?

Regards,
Gaar

Edit: Sorry, this was an answer to the previous post not New Granada's

hey, it's illegal now, so dont worry.

(isnt those .08% only in the best interest and very srict guidelines and stuff like that anyway?)

Seems the "basis" for your argument is that "because there are so few, it's ok..."

Sorry, I don't buy that argument...

Would you say euthanasia was an "ok" option for "others" to decide for someone else, as long as only 0.08% of the Population choose it as an option?

Regards,
Gaar

Edit: Sorry, this was an answer to the previous post not New Granada's

I don' know abou US, but in Sweden those 0.08% would be cases when the mothers life was in danger.

So, what would you choose to live? The mother or the baby? It is an interesting question to discuss, but for me it's a gutfeeling to choose the mother...

hey, it's illegal now, so dont worry.

(isnt those .08% only in the best interest and very srict guidelines and stuff like that anyway?)

That .08% resulted in some ~1040 proceedures just last year...

I believe there should be a point where, if a Mother decides on terminating a Pregnancy after a certain point, then they should have to "pass" the child in a manner that it may be given a chance to survive on its own.

That is how I feel about Abortion.

I am curious as to when others feel a Baby HAS a RIGHT to LIFE?

Regards,
Gaar

I agree with you here too. I've wondered this myself- on one hand, I agree with a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants a baby. On the other hand, does that mean arbitrarily ending the potential life of the baby? I've wondered if it's possible to plant a fetus the mother doesn't want into an artificial womb and let it develop there instead of developing inside the mother. Artificial wombs DO exist, they're just expensive. Yet they could probably solve the abortion problem once and for all, since it provides a compromise- a mother doesn't have to have a baby developing inside of her that she doesn't want but the baby gets to develop anyway. Thoughts?

I don' know abou US, but in Sweden those 0.08% would be cases when the mothers life was in danger.

So, what would you choose to live? The mother or the baby? It is an interesting question to discuss, but for me it's a gutfeeling to choose the mother...

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20(U.S.)

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems.


Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%


Legality of Abortion

Abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON.


A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows what Gallup polls have been showing since 1975: Most Americans take a pro-life position even if they do not call themselves "pro-life."

The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Overall, 71% of Americans oppose 97% or more of all abortions in the United States. However, that opposition doesn't transcend into whether people consider themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

The poll shows that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are no longer a majority. The figure is 48%, down from a high of 56% three years ago. There is no real gender difference: 49% of women are "pro-choice," 47% of men.

The number identifying themselves as "pro-life" has risen from 36% three years ago to 42% -- men 43%, women 42%

Analysts attribute much of the "pro-life" gains to the massive educational campaign the pro-life community has conducted over the last several years regarding partial-birth abortion.

More than six in 10, 61%, say they favor making partial-birth abortions illegal, up from 55% two years ago. Support for keeping partial-birth abortions legal has dropped from 40% to 34% in the same period. Other polls have shown as many as 80% support making partial-birth abortions illegal.

I agree with you here too. I've wondered this myself- on one hand, I agree with a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants a baby. On the other hand, does that mean arbitrarily ending the potential life of the baby? I've wondered if it's possible to plant a fetus the mother doesn't want into an artificial womb and let it develop there instead of developing inside the mother. Artificial wombs DO exist, they're just expensive. Yet they could probably solve the abortion problem once and for all, since it provides a compromise- a mother doesn't have to have a baby developing inside of her that she doesn't want but the baby gets to develop anyway. Thoughts?

I agree totally...

Then, a Woman is free to go through a proceedure to rid herself of the responsibility and someone else is free to resume that responsibility.

And the "Baby" doesn't have to be even "viable" when the decision is made, and the sooner the better...

GREAT IDEA!

Regards,
Gaar

Thanks (I think). Although my brother- staunchly pro-life- opposes the idea, although he hasn't given me a reason why.

Thanks (I think). Although my brother- staunchly pro-life- opposes the idea, although he hasn't given me a reason why.

What is more "Pro-Life" than allowing even all of the Abortions a Right to "Live"?!?!

What is more "Pro-Life" than allowing even all of the Abortions a Right to "Live"?!?!

I have yet to figure it out myself- I'd think he'd be supportive of the idea since the idea would appease both camps. I got the idea when I thought about a possible middle ground on the issue- I don't like thinking of it in cut and dry "you're either this or that" because I don't think you can do that with abortion. You really CAN go in the middle.

Okay...

Well, I think it's the woman's right, but she should definately think it over before doing it.
Well yeah, a late abortion is a very rare thing and NOT something a woman would consider lightly.

Hell, an abortion is not something most women would take lightly.

Well yeah, a late abortion is a very rare thing and NOT something a woman would consider lightly.

Hell, an abortion is not something most women would take lightly.

Lightly or not, nearly 1 in every 120 or so Women in America are having an Abortion every year...

Edit: To correct some awful Math!

Look, I don't make any 'moral' decisions on abortion. I wouldn't encourage it, but I wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose. It's her body, therefor it is her decision. I doubt it's ever an easy one. Not to mention the premature baby arguement makes no sense to anyone who has a basic grasp of trimeseter periods. As far as I understand, you have to have an abortion within the first six weeks, and I haven't heard of any tale of any baby surviving after six weeks of development. Besides, I've always said that if you believe abortion is murder, then book a woman who has had a miscarriage for manslaughter.

Lightly or not, nearly 1 in every 12 or so Women in America are having an Abortion every year...

Every year? o0
And I think that's their choice to make.

I'll also bet my bottom dollar that a very low percentage of those were late term abortions, which is what this thread is about.

Edit: 1/120 doesn't seem like an outrageous figure to me, ESPECIALLY in light of what I pointed out earlier, that most of those are first trimester abortions.

Every year? o0
And I think that's their choice to make.

I'll also bet my bottom dollar that a very low percentage of those were late term abortions, which is what this thread is about.

Yeah, I was wrong on the 12 thing, it's more like 120...

And the percentage for "late term" was something like 0.08%, which figured out to something like 1040/year... Which is ok with you?

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I was wrong on the 12 thing, it's more like 120...

And the percentage for "late term" was something like 0.08%, which figured out to something like 1040/year... Which is ok with you?

Regards,
Gaar
Considering the population of the US it's not a huge number. And I believe that each and every case should be assessed on its merits. Don't late term abortions require medical reasons anyway? And you'd be surprised at how many pregnancies go wrong.

So that number doesn't really surprise me at all. I'm more concerned about the millions of post-birth humans dying from hunger, preventable disease, war etc.

What about an unborn baby's right to NOT BE BORN? See, you fallaciously assume that EVERY CHILD WANTS TO BE BORN. This simply, and logically, cannot be true. One reason is because most fetus' brains are not active until after htey become embryos, and very late in their development at that. Thus they would probably have no desires one way or another, because they would not have the faculties to.

I also find it highly hypocritical of you to dismiss certain statistics as being insignificant (rape/incest, fetal disfunctions...) while touting others because the raw numbers seem large.

Considering the population of the US it's not a huge number. And I believe that each and every case should be assessed on its merits. Don't late term abortions require medical reasons anyway? And you'd be surprised at how many pregnancies go wrong.

So that number doesn't really surprise me at all. I'm more concerned about the millions of post-birth humans dying from hunger, preventable disease, war etc.

No, I am pretty sure they can have an Abortion for any reason at any time, but I may be wrong.

So just how many would be too many, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I am pretty sure they can have an Abortion for any reason at any time, but I may be wrong.

So just how many would be too many, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

I, myself, have no moral qualms about abortion whatsoever. I think there should be a great many more abortions all around the world to help control the population until almost everyone gets sterilized. So, really, 1048 or whatever is insignificant to me.

I also find it highly hypocritical of you to dismiss certain statistics as being insignificant (rape/incest, fetal disfunctions...) while touting others because the raw numbers seem large.

I don't "dismiss" them, I just sincerely "doubt" they are the cause of all of those Abortions is all...

Can YOU prove that they are?

And that no one can actually tell you how many are or aren't isn't just a bit disturbing to you?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I am pretty sure they can have an Abortion for any reason at any time, but I may be wrong.

So just how many would be too many, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar
Like I said, abortions should be judged on a case by case basis, and besides, I think stopping women from having them is beside the point. More sex ed and empowerment would be FAR more useful. Just saying there are "too many abortions and we must stop it" is completely ignoring the context in which people have abortions, like health issues, poverty etc.

Pulling an arbitrary figure out of my arse would be useless, so I won't do it.

I, myself, have no moral qualms about abortion whatsoever. I think there should be a great many more abortions all around the world to help control the population until almost everyone gets sterilized. So, really, 1048 or whatever is insignificant to me.

I see...

So you would go as far as making it a Population Control device.

I believe that BIRTH CONTROL serves the SAME PURPOSE, without all the emotional baggage.

Regards,
Gaar

I don't "dismiss" them, I just sincerely "doubt" they are the cause of all of those Abortions is all...

Can YOU prove that they are?

And that no one can actually tell you how many are or aren't isn't just a bit disturbing to you?

Regards,
Gaar

No, it means that the US doesn't live in an informational police state where your personal medical records are available for public scrutiny. It would disturb me if I could Google that Pam Whatsernuts of Mossdale Virginia has had an abortion seven years ago.

And you REALLY should stop capitalizing words arbitrarily in your sentences. It makes you look like an illiterate person and provides less of an argument for the case you are presenting, that is, of turning the US of A into a police state where women have no reproductive rights or medical privacy rights.

Pulling an arbitrary figure out of my arse would be useless, so I won't do it.

Actually, by saying 1040 ISN'T enough you have ALREADY picked a number that doesn't work, so what's the difference?

I see...

So you would go as far as making it a Population Control device.

I believe that BIRTH CONTROL serves the SAME PURPOSE, without all the emotional baggage.

Regards,
Gaar

I believe that abortion is a valid form of birth control. As well as education, empowerment of people, and sterilization by permanent or temporary means. You are the one with the emotional baggage.

Actually, by saying 1040 ISN'T enough you have ALREADY picked a number that doesn't work, so what's the difference?
I didnt actually say it "isn't enough." :eek:

I said that as a figure it doesn't concern me overly much. Drawing a line in the sand where we say we should be concerned is silly. Besides, I think raw stats like that will always sound bigger than they are in proportion to a population.

And I think we need to address issues, not numbers, not the end result (abortion).

Why does it concern you so much? Why not go on a crusade to save the thousands of children dying EVERY WEEK from hunger?

No, it means that the US doesn't live in an informational police state where your personal medical records are available for public scrutiny. It would disturb me if I could Google that Pam Whatsernuts of Mossdale Virginia has had an abortion seven years ago.

And you REALLY should stop capitalizing words arbitrarily in your sentences. It makes you look like an illiterate person and provides less of an argument for the case you are presenting, that is, of turning the US of A into a police state where women have no reproductive rights or medical privacy rights.

So I can see how many accidents are caused by Alcohol, but not how many late term Abortions are done for reasons of Incest, Mothers Health or some other reason?

Who said anything about getting all of their names? Do YOU know everyone's name that died from Alcohol last year?

And why is it that because I am concerned with an UnBorn BABIES Right to Life that YOU somehow need to Equate that to a "Police State"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Why does it concern you so much? Why not go on a crusade to save the thousands of children dying EVERY WEEK from hunger?

Has someone said I don't?

Why would that preclude me from being concerned for the Right's of an UnBorn Child?

Regards,
Gaar

Has someone said I don't?

Why would that preclude me from being concerned for the Right's of an UnBorn Child?

Regards,
Gaar
I meant, why aren't you starting threads questioning how that happens in a world where there is a surplus of food?

Abortion just gets aired over and over again. It's happening here in Australia, despite the fact that 80% of the population don't think it's even an issue and support a woman's right to choose.

We are having an argument in semantics, over the internet, on a forum about artificial nations. Please do not have a heart attack over this. It would not be very cool. Calm down guy.

I do not see an embryo as a baby, and thus alive, until it takes its first breath. This is a partially rational, and partially intuitive, decision on my part. Thus, to me, THERE ARE NO unborn babies. Because, as I have already said, to be considered a baby, an embryo much be born.

I am also unconcerned with the reasons behind abortion. That someone would even consider an abortion is reason enough to have one. Evonomic stability, emotional stability, ability to deliver and raise a child, and convenience are all valid to me.

If you really care so much about abortion, you should promote a culture where no child is concieved who would be born unwanted. Campaign for educational reforms, population controls, reasonable eugenics. Help improve the quality of lives that already exist. Donate money, food, clothing, and shelter to the THOUSANDS of children IN AMERICA who are starving, cold, impoverished, and homeless. DO SOMETHING, rather than whining on a fucking online forum. Because really, your moralistic bullshit is not going to go anywhere good.

I meant, why aren't you starting threads questioning how that happens in a world where there is a surplus of food?

Abortion just gets aired over and over again. It's happening here in Australia, despite the fact that 80% of the population don't think it's even an issue and support a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps because I ALREADY DO SOMETHING about hunger in my local community and "give" to Charities that also "work on it" Worldwide...

But I have YET to do ANYTHING with regards to my ideals on Abortion and I thought I would start here.

Why do YOU have such a problem with it being discussed here, in a Forum where such things CAN be discussed, is a better question in my mind...

And better yet, IF YOU have SUCH A PROBLEM with it, WHY would YOU even feel the need to join this discussion?!?!

Or is it you LIKE being a Hypocrite?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps because I ALREADY DO SOMETHING about hunger in my local community and "give" to Charities that also "work on it" Worldwide...

But I have YET to do ANYTHING with regards to my ideals on Abortion and I thought I would start here.

Why do YOU have such a problem with it being discussed here, in a Forum where such things CAN be discussed, is a better question in my mind...

And better yet, IF YOU have SUCH A PROBLEM with it, WHY would YOU even feel the need to join this discussion?!?!

Or is it you LIKE being a Hypocrite?

Regards,
Gaar


ROFL. Getting a BIT carried AWAY there?

I was referring to THE glut of threads about the ISSUE. And I don't have a problem with people discussing ABORTION, but I think it's BLOWN way out of PROPORTION. (kind of like all this capitaising)

But iT'S Fun tO RandOmly caPitalIzE tHingS. I'm an asshole and I approved this message.

ROFL. Getting a BIT carried AWAY there?

I was referring to THE glut of threads about the ISSUE. And I don't have a problem with people discussing ABORTION, but I think it's BLOWN way out of PROPORTION. (kind of like all this capitaising)

This coming from someone whose majority of replies today have been to the "Prom" Thread?!?!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=263382

Give me a BREAK!

I don't see YOU complaining about the amount of silly assed threads that are a bunch of people stroking their OWN EGO'S, DO I!?!?

Again, GIVE ME A BREAK!

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20(U.S.)

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems. [snip]

Ok, you give numbers, but they arent qualified in that they dont reflect how much the cause for abortion does shift in the later terms. I dont think that the same percentages apply to third-trimester abortions and that health problems will see a vast increase, while birth control will diminish. A mother has enough time to decide if she wants a baby and have a first-trimester abortion for that. Even if she procrastinates it would be second-term most likely. Thus we can assume that some detrimental development to the mothers health took place in a larger percentage of third-trimester abortions. It is rather unlikely to carry around a fetus for more than six monthes which you dont want.

She wasn't complaining about silly, spammy, miscellaneous threads. She was complaining abot erroneous threads. That is, threads that have been DONE to DEATH, ad nauseum, over and over and over. Abortion is one of them.

Ok, you give numbers, but they arent qualified in that they dont reflect how much the cause for abortion does shift in the later terms. I dont think that the same percentages apply to third-trimester abortions and that health problems will see a vast increase, while birth control will diminish. A mother has enough time to decide if she wants a baby and have a first-trimester abortion for that. Even if she procrastinates it would be second-term most likely. Thus we can assume that some detrimental development to the mothers health took place in a larger percentage of third-trimester abortions. It is rather unlikely to carry around a fetus for more than six monthes which you dont want.

I didn't say they did...

But we actually don't know that they don't, do we? And while I am sure that they do, I am not so sure they do as much as some seem to suggest.

Regards,
Gaar

She wasn't complaining about silly, spammy, miscellaneous threads. She was complaining abot erroneous threads. That is, threads that have been DONE to DEATH, ad nauseum, over and over and over. Abortion is one of them.

And people stroking their own Ego's hasn't?

They just call it something different every time...

Like the *whoever* appreciation Thread...

And the vote for Prom Queen Thread...

And the who is King, Queeen and whatever Thread.

Again, GIVE ME A BREAK!

Regards,
Gaar

I love to play devil's advocate - I actually support the right for a woman to choose, though I also sympathise with pro-lifers. Abortion is, if nothing else, an ugly ugly situation.

My position is that nobody who has not ever dealt with an unexpected pregnancy can have an opinion. I don't like the term 'unwanted'. 'Want' can change over time.

I disagree that pregnancy should be treated like it is some sort of disease. It is the most beautiful experience a human can share. I also find it ironic that most pro-lifers are middle-income white married women who could afford an unexpected pregnancy with little sacrafice.

The arguments that many abortion supporters use of a baby 'not having taken it's first breath' is flawed. A Baby is able to survive outside the womb after the second tri-mester. It is not fully developed even at birth. It is mostly developed by age two. (Which is why most of us have no memory prior to that age) So the 'not fully developed' argument could be used up to a two-year-old for 'abourtion' qualification. Not exactly a pretty picture, no?

I think that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion through the first four months if she chooses. (Why one would wait longer I can't guess) I do think federal money should be spent to educate her on the option and ramifications. I do NOT think federal money should be used for the procedure itself.

I also support free, govt sponsored, sterilization for women and men. I see no ethical problem with making a simple procedure free for those who wish it. (and not just the poor) The people most opposed are actually liberal - they feel it is unfair to the poor and minorities since they would be most likely to utilize it. Makes no sense to me...

Look, I don't make any 'moral' decisions on abortion. I wouldn't encourage it, but I wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose. It's her body, therefor it is her decision. I doubt it's ever an easy one. Not to mention the premature baby arguement makes no sense to anyone who has a basic grasp of trimeseter periods. As far as I understand, you have to have an abortion within the first six weeks, and I haven't heard of any tale of any baby surviving after six weeks of development. Besides, I've always said that if you believe abortion is murder, then book a woman who has had a miscarriage for manslaughter. Oh em gee… The whole pro-life argument is that the foetus is an autonomous being, and therefore not part of her body (especially late-term foetuses… no different to newborn humans except for size and ability to survive). I don't support abortions in general, but I will not budge on the issue of late-term abortions - especially partial birth abortions, which are horrendous.
Ahem.
If a woman has a miscarriage, how is it her fault in any way? For it to be manslaughter, she must have played a part in its death… very bad analogy.

She wasn't complaining about silly, spammy, miscellaneous threads. She was complaining abot erroneous threads. That is, threads that have been DONE to DEATH, ad nauseum, over and over and over. Abortion is one of them.

And do you know what I DO when someone asks me a question about a Thread I have already started or participated in?

I point them to the THREAD and not just ASSUME they have been through all of the different Threads here...

I have done it several times when the Oil subject comes up...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Or the Iraq War...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404882

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404171

Instead of just Bitching that it has been discussed before.

Regards,
Gaar

I didn't say they did...

But we actually don't know that they don't, do we? And while I am sure that they do, I am not so sure they do as much as some seem to suggest.
But nonetheless you condemn third-trimester arbitrarily?

First off, I support a woman’s Right to choose, to a point...

But more to what I would like to learn from those who espouse the Woman's Right to choose, even up to and including "Partial-Birth" Abortion, is when, if ever, do they consider the unborn Babies Right to Life?

Let me explain...

We have all seen the premature Births of Babies all of the time that survive and become productive members of Society, now I have no studies to cite how early it is that most are able to survive from, but I believe we can all agree that it happens, right?

So, if an unborn Baby could survive out of the Mother Womb, why are they given ANY CHOICE in whether it's Life should be terminated or not?

Have we somehow given Women the voice of God simply because they are pregnant?

I believe there should be a point where, if a Mother decides on terminating a Pregnancy after a certain point, then they should have to "pass" the child in a manner that it may be given a chance to survive on its own.

That is how I feel about Abortion.

I am curious as to when others feel a Baby HAS a RIGHT to LIFE?

Regards,
Gaar
based on current human law, there is no point at which any born human person has the right to compel another human to donate their tissues, organs, or body. the right to life does NOT supercede, in this case; if you are dying, in need of a transfusion, and i am the only person on the planet who can give you the needed transfusion, i am still perfectly within my rights to refuse to give that transfusion. i do not consider the freedom to choose what happens to my body "playing God," i consider it the most basic human right we have.

just to be on the safe side, i try assuming that a fetus has all the legal rights of a born human infant, and that is why i believe abortion should be 100% legal at all times and for all reasons; there is no time at which a parent can be forced to donate their body to the sustainance of their child, or to any other human person, so i will not grant a fetus rights which no born human being has.

another legal angle is that parents reserve the right to end life-giving transfusions to their child even if the child requires such treatment to live, so i see no reason why the parent should have the "power of God" over a born child but should be restricted when it comes to an embryo or fetus.

She wasn't complaining about silly, spammy, miscellaneous threads. She was complaining abot erroneous threads. That is, threads that have been DONE to DEATH, ad nauseum, over and over and over. Abortion is one of them.
here's a wild idea:

if somebody doesn't like to see re-hashes of certain topics, how's about they choose not to click on links to those topics? i know, it sounds crazy, but it actually is possible for somebody to NOT follow an internet link! it is also possible to NOT post on a topic, even after you have entered it!

WHy deo you assume that my attempt to clarify someone else, or simply restate what they said and had ignored, in any way implies that I a somehow in concordance with said person or statement? Often I will restate what my linguistical opponents say if I believe that I could put it in clearer words. But I digress...

I assume that a child is not alive until it takes its first breath. I never said that I assumed that a child was fully developed then. I make the "alive" distinction. As a reprocussion, I believe that people who are kept alive through breathing/feeding tubes are not really alive, but are dead and being cussitated constantly. But that is off the topic of the thread.

If you are going to remove logic and reason from a debate, and inject emotions and competitiveness, like the need to prove how virtuous you are or the need to provide a counterpoint to someone's point, then the debate will often degenerate. This is only a problem if your goal is actual debate, however, and not just an "ego stroke" over your own morals and beliefs.

And whatever is wrong with enjoying yourself, having fun, being silly? Not a god damned thing. Life is too short and final to be summed up by suffering or hatred or anger. Lighten up, the lot of you!

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20(U.S.)

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems.


Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%


Legality of Abortion

Abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON.


A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows what Gallup polls have been showing since 1975: Most Americans take a pro-life position even if they do not call themselves "pro-life."

The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Overall, 71% of Americans oppose 97% or more of all abortions in the United States. However, that opposition doesn't transcend into whether people consider themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

The poll shows that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are no longer a majority. The figure is 48%, down from a high of 56% three years ago. There is no real gender difference: 49% of women are "pro-choice," 47% of men.

The number identifying themselves as "pro-life" has risen from 36% three years ago to 42% -- men 43%, women 42%

Analysts attribute much of the "pro-life" gains to the massive educational campaign the pro-life community has conducted over the last several years regarding partial-birth abortion.

More than six in 10, 61%, say they favor making partial-birth abortions illegal, up from 55% two years ago. Support for keeping partial-birth abortions legal has dropped from 40% to 34% in the same period. Other polls have shown as many as 80% support making partial-birth abortions illegal.

First - getting your statistics from a memebr of the "Pro-Life Ring" might indicate a slight bias.

Second - the fact that you haven't included that sites citation details... i.e. that some of the statistics are only sourced from 'Right-to-Life" sources, indicates carelessness or bias on your part... and doesn't change the fact that the site you cite, has a bias.

Third: Regarding 'Partial Birth Abortions'... I very much doubt that '6 of every ten' people could even say what a 'partial birth abortion' is.

But nonetheless you condemn third-trimester arbitrarily?

No, when did I say that?

If there is GOOD REASON, then I am all for it...

Why are YOU so AGAINST recognizing an UnBorn's Rights?

Regards,
Gaar

No, when did I say that?

If there is GOOD REASON, then I am all for it...

Why are YOU so AGAINST recognizing an UnBorn's Rights?

Regards,
Gaar

Because they 'have' no rights?

just to be on the safe side, i try assuming that a fetus has all the legal rights of a born human infant, and that is why i believe abortion should be 100% legal at all times and for all reasons; there is no time at which a parent can be forced to donate their body to the sustainance of their child, or to any other human person, so i will not grant a fetus rights which no born human being has.

another legal angle is that parents reserve the right to end life-giving transfusions to their child even if the child requires such treatment to live, so i see no reason why the parent should have the "power of God" over a born child but should be restricted when it comes to an embryo or fetus.

And what about those where the Mother's Life is not an issue?

And just because YOU don't HAVE to give them "Life Saving measures" doesn't mean YOU have some Right to just "snuff them out" if there are other "procedures" that are determined to be no more risk than an Abortion would be, do you?

So while I agree with you that there is no Right that compels you to act on behalf of the unBorn Child, I would not assume for a second that just because YOU CHOOSE to END the Symbiotic relationship between yourself and your unBorn Child doesn't give YOU the Right to end the possibility of Life for the infant, does it?

Now I am not saying that there aren't circumstances where one HAS to be chosen over the other, I AM saying that I don't believe those circumstances happen as often as we are seeing... Although I may be wrong.

So YOU are saying that a "fetus" has no Rights until YOU have ejected it from YOUR Body in any manner YOU choose, and I am saying I believe some consideration for the Right’s of the Child needs to take place BEFORE then, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Urantia II,

You initiate this thread by claiming you were pro-choice. That appears to have been less than candid.

You also seem woefully mistaken in your basic premises. One of the reason I wished you had at least read prior threads before starting your own thread is that most of the "facts" you take for granted have already been disproven. If nothing else, its a pain to go look up all that information again merely to educate yet another misguided person.

:headbang: This is simply ridiculous and wrong:
Abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON.

Abortion "on demand" throughout pregnancy in the US is a pernicious myth. I explained the state of the law in my original post but did not bother with links. Apparently you choose not to believe me. I'll try to prove my point with neutral sources:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html) (if you do not wish to read the whole thing, try the short summary at the front which is written by lawyers for the company that publish all federal opinions)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

Very quick summary of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/306/)

State Abortion Laws - background (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm)

State Abortion Laws: A Survey (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/stablw.htm) (BTW, before you flip out b/c it appears 10 states are not listed specific post-viability abortion bans, consider 2 things: (1) 16 states have complete abortion bans (even though they are unconstitutional) and (2) this list is not 100% perfect.)

Major laws concerning abortion: US and Canada (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm) (this source is not precise, but provides a generally reliable simplification on this point)

State policies in brief: Restrictions on Post-Viability Abortions (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPA.pdf)

If you insist on denying reality, I can provide even more documentation.

As to the rest of your post:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20(U.S.)

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems.


Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

[snip]


A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows what Gallup polls have been showing since 1975: Most Americans take a pro-life position even if they do not call themselves "pro-life."

The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Overall, 71% of Americans oppose 97% or more of all abortions in the United States. However, that opposition doesn't transcend into whether people consider themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

The poll shows that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are no longer a majority. The figure is 48%, down from a high of 56% three years ago. There is no real gender difference: 49% of women are "pro-choice," 47% of men.

The number identifying themselves as "pro-life" has risen from 36% three years ago to 42% -- men 43%, women 42%

Analysts attribute much of the "pro-life" gains to the massive educational campaign the pro-life community has conducted over the last several years regarding partial-birth abortion.

More than six in 10, 61%, say they favor making partial-birth abortions illegal, up from 55% two years ago. Support for keeping partial-birth abortions legal has dropped from 40% to 34% in the same period. Other polls have shown as many as 80% support making partial-birth abortions illegal.

This post is from a vehemently pro-life & ridiculously bias source. It is filled with half-truths, lies, and deceptions.

You might note, for example, that your source relies on one of mine, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, for some information -- but chooses "Central Illinois Right to Life" as the source for the misleading and inflammatory claim that "The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control." This is a blatant attempt at deception.

Similarly, your source provides no basis, no citation, nothing to support the assertion that "Abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON." The reason for this is simple: it is not true.

I could go on to rebut the rest of these so-called facts, but I am sick of doing this over and over again. Do your homework from some unbiased and/or reliable sources. 'Cuz what you are saying just isn't so. :headbang:

*snip*

ok, let's assume for a moment that everything YOU SAY is true...

Would you mind addressing some of the other Issues discussed in the subsequent posts or are you going to rely on calling me an Idiot and that is all you need to prove?!?!

I guess once I am an Idiot, in your mind, my OPINION no longer deserves any consideration, by you, what-so-ever!?!?

Thank you for making that clear.

Regards,
Gaar

based on current human law, there is no point at which any born human person has the right to compel another human to donate their tissues, organs, or body. the right to life does NOT supercede, in this case; if you are dying, in need of a transfusion, and i am the only person on the planet who can give you the needed transfusion, i am still perfectly within my rights to refuse to give that transfusion. i do not consider the freedom to choose what happens to my body "playing God," i consider it the most basic human right we have.

just to be on the safe side, i try assuming that a fetus has all the legal rights of a born human infant, and that is why i believe abortion should be 100% legal at all times and for all reasons; there is no time at which a parent can be forced to donate their body to the sustainance of their child, or to any other human person, so i will not grant a fetus rights which no born human being has.

another legal angle is that parents reserve the right to end life-giving transfusions to their child even if the child requires such treatment to live, so i see no reason why the parent should have the "power of God" over a born child but should be restricted when it comes to an embryo or fetus.

A wonderful and lucid point which is rarely raised in the abortion debate.

The argument is extended to deal with "choice and responsibility in having sex" in this manner:

A person who chooses to lead a healthy life cannot be compelled to donate their organs and tissue to others, under any circumstances.

It can be argued that if somone did not want their organs and tissue taken for medical purposes, they would *choose* not to be healthy, and therefore their choice to be healthy comes with a personal responsibility and implicit, binding consent to surrender their healthy flesh and organs to others.

ok, let's assume for a moment that everything YOU SAY is true...

Would you mind addressing some of the other Issues discussed in the subsequent posts or are you going to rely on calling me an Idiot and that is all you need to prove?!?!

I guess once I am an Idiot, in your mind, my OPINION no longer deserves any consideration, by you, what-so-ever!?!?

Thank you for making that clear.

Regards,
Gaar

Nice. I have never called you an "Idiot." I have said you are in error.

I am beginning to wonder if you are trolling. You do not seem to have ever answered my points (as you haven't done here but rather focused on the false allegation that I called you an "idiot.") Your responses do not match your original explanation that you were seeking honest dialogue.

You do not have to take my word (which you imply is unreliable) for my assertions as I have copiously documented them from reliable sources. You appear to wish to ignore the truth. Again, it does not seem like you are seeking honest dialogue.

As to addressing every point raised before ... Let's see. You've said you were pro-choice but had a problem with late-term abortions being available for "any reason whatsoever" or for "birth control." You've complained that there is no respect for the "rights of the unborn" once they become viable.

I have explained that, even under the original scheme of Roe v. Wade, abortions could (and have been) regulated or banned (except where necessary for life or health of the mother) after the point of viability. Thus, current US law does allow states to protect viable fetuses and every state has done so.

I've also proven late-term abortions are exceedingly rare and legally limited to extreme situations such as when necessary for the life or health of the mother.

So, I've proven your concerns are unwarranted. Other than a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, what else is there to address?

(Not to mention that many others have responded to you quite eloquently.)

This coming from someone whose majority of replies today have been to the "Prom" Thread?!?!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=263382

Give me a BREAK!

I don't see YOU complaining about the amount of silly assed threads that are a bunch of people stroking their OWN EGO'S, DO I!?!?

Again, GIVE ME A BREAK!

Regards,
Gaar
So I'm not allowed to post in threads I want now? Or maybe you're just sad because nobody wants to stroke your ego.

And I was also making a comment about society which you obviously chose to ignore, along with many of my other comments.

It's ironic that you complain about ego stroking when you're so full of yourself.

And Jester is spot on, as is The Cat-Tribe.

And what about those where the Mother's Life is not an issue?

read my post again. if fetuses are given exactly the same rights as born infant, ALL ABORTION SHOULD BE 100% LEGAL AT ANY TIME AND FOR ANY REASON. whether or not the woman's life is in danger doesn't matter, though it is a particularly disgusting position to claim the female's life should be sacrificed to protect a pregnancy.


And just because YOU don't HAVE to give them "Life Saving measures" doesn't mean YOU have some Right to just "snuff them out" if there are other "procedures" that are determined to be no more risk than an Abortion would be, do you?

if it is possible to remove a fetus intact and viable, without causing any more medical disturbance to the female than the parallel abortion procedure would cause, then i have no objection. the life or death of the fetus is not relavent, all that is at issue is the right of the female to end her physical connection to the fetus. she can end that connection at any time and for any reason...that is, if a fetus has ONLY those rights granted to born human beings.


So while I agree with you that there is no Right that compels you to act on behalf of the unBorn Child, I would not assume for a second that just because YOU CHOOSE to END the Symbiotic relationship between yourself and your unBorn Child doesn't give YOU the Right to end the possibility of Life for the infant, does it?

again, whether or not the fetus survives is not at issue. i am allowed to deny use of my organs or tissues, even if doing so will lead to the death of another human being. i am allowed to terminate a transfusion even while that transfusion is in progress, if i no longer want it to continue. i see no reason why a fetus should have the right to co-opt my body, especially since no born human may do that.


So YOU are saying that a "fetus" has no Rights until YOU have ejected it from YOUR Body in any manner YOU choose, and I am saying I believe some consideration for the Right’s of the Child needs to take place BEFORE then, right?

i am saying that the fetus' "rights" do not include the right to use my body against my wishes. no living human person has that right, so why should a fetus? you seem to think i am not considering the fetus' rights; you are incorrect. i consider its rights, very seriously, and the only acceptable conclusion is that the fetus does not have the right to demand sustanence from the body of another human being, because no human person has that right.

ok, let's assume for a moment that everything YOU SAY is true...

Would you mind addressing some of the other Issues discussed in the subsequent posts or are you going to rely on calling me an Idiot and that is all you need to prove?!?!

I guess once I am an Idiot, in your mind, my OPINION no longer deserves any consideration, by you, what-so-ever!?!?

Thank you for making that clear.

Regards,
Gaar
no offense, but you really need to adjust your attitude. your claims were shown to be incorrect, misleading, and (in some cases) flat out bald face lies. were i in your place, i would appologize to the entire thread for having posted completely false information, and for perpetuating myths and misconceptions that have long since been shown to be utter bunk. i would appologize for my complete failure to accurately research a topic before forming a strong opinion on it, and for posting a vitriolic rant on a subject i clearly knew nothing about.

now, i don't expect you to hold yourself to the same standards that i do, but i certainly expect you to behave more humbly. your 'information' has been thoroughly refuted; now the ball is in your court. rather than demanding the opposition perform yet more research to address your fraudulent claims, you might consider trying to explain why you posted misinformation to begin with, and providing sources for the additional claims you want them to address...show us where you are getting your 'facts,' and see if you can't answer your own questions by giving those sources a good, long, critical look on your own.

I assume that a child is not alive until it takes its first breath. I never said that I assumed that a child was fully developed then. I make the "alive" distinction. As a reprocussion, I believe that people who are kept alive through breathing/feeding tubes are not really alive, but are dead and being cussitated constantly. But that is off the topic of the thread.

a suggestion:

i understand the distinction in "alive" that you are trying to make, but i think using that kind of terminology may get you into more trouble than it is worth. a human fetus is clearly alive, as is a human who is maintained by machines, and saying they are not alive is biologically incorrect.

the term i tend to use is "personhood," because i feel it is a little clearer than "life." a human fetus is alive, a human liver is alive, a human sperm is alive, you and i are alive. however, of those living things, i believe that a fetus, liver, and sperm are not human persons; they are human, they are alive, but they are not human persons.

again, just a suggestion, but it might help in debates like this one, because otherwise you may get sidetracked by people trying to prove that a fetus is alive (which it is, biologically speaking). that kind of tangent will only distract from the real issue, after all, and we get enough annoying sidetracks in these debates already :).