Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on October 05, 2000, 01:47:00 PM
-
Numbers are approximate because they are fron charts, not tables.
Abortions became legal in US in 1973.
Abortions numbers are per 1000 women aged 15/44
Per 1000 women means approximately per 2000 population. So in order to get values per 1000 population aged 15/44 the values have to be halved. I call it Ab/1000pop
I suppose that one abortion means less then one child unborn - a girl having 2 abortions in 2 years may be killing 2 fetuses, but she could have produced only one child during that time.
It requires no proof that most of the abortions happen in the families with troubled social background. Don't remember exact numbers, probably 90%+. Let's assume that due to the two previous considerations, the number of children with troubled social background not born because of the abortions is 2/3 of the number of abortions. Call that NbornT/1000pop.
It is a well-known statistics that most of the violent crime is commited by people with problematic social background. Such people are also more likely to live in poverty, commit suicide or have an abortion.
The reasons are obvious. If a young girl has an undesirable child, not only will she have much harder time succeeding in life, she will usually not be able to bring the child up to become productive member of a society. Thus the misery is perpetuated. The same girl given few more years should be able to grow up herself, create a family and have the same number of children in much better conditions. Also such children would be much less likely to be exposed to drugs, alcohol and other harmfull substances during pregnancy, resulting in better health, fewer mental and behavioral problems.
Year 71 73 75 79 83 87 91 95
Abortions/1000 women 0 16 20 29 28 27 26 23
Ab/1000pop 0 8 10 14.5 14 13.5 13 11.5
NbornT/1000pop 0 5.3 6.6 9.6 9.3 6 8.6 7.6
Cumulative NbornT 0 5.3 11.9 21.5 30.8 36.8 45.2 52.8
Social evils
20 years later 91 93 95 99
Suicide by firearm 000 18.5 19 18.5 17
Homocide by firearm 000 16.5 17 14.5 <12
Abortions/1000 women 26 25 23
Murder rate per 100,000 9.75 9.5 8 6
The first children not born in 1973 would have been 16 in 1989, 20 in 1993 and 25 in 1998. Ages 16-25 are the most likely to commit violent crime, suicide, etc. If my assumptions are correct, the legalization of abortion caused 45.2 undesirable children from troubled social backgrounds not to be born by 1991 - 22 boys and 22 girls per 1000 population 35/64 old. If we had 100 million people in that age group in 1991, that would be 45,200 people - about 22,000 men and 22,000 women.
If you look at the statistics, all the social evils were on the rise before that, peaked in 1991 and are on a steady decline since then - murder, violent crime, suicide, even abortion. Localised studies in the places where abortion was legalised earlier or later show the same corellation.
While all kinds of politicians, police officials and religious leaders are taking credit for those drastic reductions, the real reason seems pretty clear to me. Whether we are for or against abortion, as a society we seem to be benefiting from it enormously.
Just in the year 1999 3.75 fewer people were murdered per 100,000 then in 1991. That makes 9,750 in one year alone!
Somebody with time on their hands, calculate how many lives, including abortions would have been lost if the crime and other evils did not drop from their peak but stayed there for the next 10 years, let alone continued to grow? What would be monetary cost to society - deaths, medical, police, justice, jails, welfare?
How much did it cost to abort those people? $1000 each? $2000 each?
How much would it cost if the "abortion pill" had been used instead of surgical abortions, including complications?
It seems that public funding of abortions returns much more bang for the buck then funding of jails, police, educational programs, etc.
I am retyping the numbers from the latest issue of Economist, so up to this point the post was supposed to be objective.
I do support the freedom of choice myself though I don't expect that anyone in my family would ever exercise it. I believe if the trend holds, the number of abortions will decrease drastically and stabilize on much lower level, probably even lower then the number of unsafe illegal abortions would have been if they were outlawed.
While I am against killing of innocent human beings, I do not believe that the question at which stage after conception a subject becomes a human being would ever be resolved because it is purely subjective, so no point arguing about that.
Since I have heard most of the arguments before, I would much rather appreciate some objective information I did not know that can give me more knowlege on the subject.
Regards,
miko
-
If you look at the statistics, all the social evils were on the rise before that, peaked in 1991 and are on a steady decline since then - murder, violent crime, suicide, even abortion. Localised studies in the places where abortion was legalised earlier or later show the same corellation.
Miko - you imply that suicide and abortion are social evils. I've heard that term used to describe abortion (I wouldn't agree with it though), but I've never heard suicide described as such. Is this what you mean?
I personally agree with the performing of abortion preferably before the foetus starts to grow and definitely before a CNS is developed. I've always thought that abortion is better than having a child born that will be unloved, abused etc - you are storing up a problem for society there. Maybe your info. reflects this; however, more time would be required to make any solid conclusions.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
Why not have publicly funded baby dumpsters? So even a few months after birth the mother can ditch the kid if it becomes too much trouble.
Too bad theres no statistcs on how many of those babies would have become decent human beings, happy to be alive.
Seriously though, how about paying low-income women to get their tubes tied (the medical term escapes me). They would get the procedure for free plus a few hurdred bucks bonus. They get some extra cash and can have unprotected sex till the cows come home, we dont get stuck with their criminal kids. Sounds like win-win, and nobody has to die.
I think this was tried by and individual, who was then labeled a racist for doing so.
-
Dowding,
You are right, I refer to abortions and suicide as social evils only because that is a common opinion/terminology.
Since both of those acts are performed by individuals on themselves by free choice, they cannot be technically called evil.
At the same time significant numbers of both are indicative of general troubled state of the society (or the affected part of it).
miko
-
While all kinds of politicians, police officials and religious leaders are taking credit for those drastic reductions, the real reason seems pretty clear to me. Whether we are for or against abortion, as a society we seem to be benefiting from it enormously.
Your inferences derived from your statistical manipulations simply do not allow you to come to that conclusion, my friend. Even if all your calculations are correct, they offer no substantive evidence that the two sets of data are causally related. The best that you can hope for with that type of data is that there will be some correlation....and I have to tell you that the data you present is very weak in that regard. Furthermore, the numerous other variables that have changed over the period of time you are assessing require that you assess the influence that THOSE variables have on your dependent variable, before you can conclude anything about abortions. Your analysis wouldn't have a snails chance in hell of getting published by a reputable scientific journal!
edog
-
Heh, I've waited for this topic to come up. I haven't wished to debate it on this forum, but I knew that if it ever came up, I wouldn't be able to stop myself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Also up, the classical anti-choice rethoric of calling a zygote/embryo/fetus an "unborn child". It can be debated where one stops and the other starts, but what is hard to debate is that a butterfly under part of its development is a caterpillar.
Or is it an "unborn butterfly"?
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion (which is a nice way of describing a logical fallacy, argumentum ad absurdum, one could argue that masturbation kills millions of potential humans - potential egg/sperm combinations aren't realized. Not to mention natural abortions, or just menstruation. Oh well.
Personhood is granted on legal basis. Once granted, human rights apply. A person can be declared incapable of handling him or herself, but personhood is not revoked.
Another interesting aspect is viewing the fetus as a person, for the sake of the argument, and for the sake of seeing where it leads us. Assuming that pregnancy is unwanted, you have the case of one person, with all its rights, invading another unwilling person's body and effectively acting like a a parasite, causing major discomfort and draining nourishment and resources. If you're allowed to shoot an intruder in yer home, what are you allowed to do with an intruder in your body?
"Don't have sex", some would say, but that is really a red herring. Not allowing a person to evict another from his or her body would be akin to denying a person medical attetion after a car crash on the basis that he or she did not use a seat belt, i.e didn't minimize the risk of innjury. This assuming that the accident was just that, an accident.
The key isssue here would be intent, then.
I don't like abortions at all. I dislike them even more as a way of birth control. But, it ain't my body, and it ain't my choice. And there's no way in hell I am gonna force my morals down the throat of someone else, especially as I have *no* chance of ever being in there situation, being unable to carry children myself as a male. Do whatever you want to with your body, includng drugs, and I'll do what I please with mine.
Regurge, specculation like that would also require you to see the other side of the on - how many would turn out as bad, evil persons? Gviven that abortions according to the stats mainly take place amongst people with bad social backgrounds (which is not entirely true), the chances are much higher. This is like a religious debate in a sense, and I'll stick to my guns; I'll deal with the factual before I deal with the potential, since any idea has potential.
What's funny is that here,, our teenage mother per thousand inhabitants is very much lower than in the US. Of course sexual education is mandatory and there isn't a general taboo regarding sex. And yonung Danish women are quite liberated on their views on sex, so exposure is definitely there (unfortunately, not always near me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)).
Personally, I think there are greate evils I can dedicate myself to fighting than intruding on another persons right to do whatever they want with their bodies.
And, this ain't a political debate, so no left/right flames. This is an ethical one.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
-
Abortionists seem to be cutting their own throat (not to mention their soul, yes StSanta there is such a thing). For each child they murder, they are cleansing the gene pool of an individual who would be raised exposed to that way of thinking. Eventually they should be in the minority and truth/justice will prevail. I just hope it's not too late ............
Eagler
-
"Don't have sex"
You're right, StSanta. When has this, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever worked? This is the line taken by the Catholic church on the Aids epidemic in Africa - i.e. you cannot use a condom because it is a crime against God, and therefore to halt the spread of Aids people should use restraint.
Naivety at its most irresponsible extreme.
Eagler - the 'soul' and its interpretation is very much a personal view. You may believe in it in whatever way you wish; I believe that it is as much your right as any person's right to do what as they wish with their 'soul'. That is why I am pro-choice. Do you think that people should be allowed to have a different spirtuality to yourself?
Are you a pacifist, Eagler? What are your thoughts on killing human beings that have been born?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Heheh Eagler
I see we are on diametrically opposite positions on this issue (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
First; regarding soul: prove it. Just the numbers, as we're used to in AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Then the way it functions, the biology behind it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Seriously, I can appreciate religious concerns. But, I cannot let them intervene with human rights. And a zygote/embryo/fetus does not have human rights. Assuming it does, we run into additional problems, as I've discussed before.
Wish I could say I am concerned about my soul - I ain't though. I'm not good, but I ain't evil and in the long run, it really doesn't matter.
Had I been aborted, I'd not be here to write this obviously. I'd also not known what I'd have missed, so that's a bit of a non issue too.
Come to think of it, no one asked ME whether I wanted to be born or not! My parents, those selfish buggers, decided that two weren't enough, and egoistically threw me into this world. What bastiges! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) One would think they'd have the decency of throwing in a Vette for the deal.
Oh well. Life could be a helluva lot worse (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
My guess is that established religions will loose some of its foothold, and the New Age type ones gain some - that has been the trend here for some years. With it, traditional religious opposition to abortion will go down a bit. Not good news for Eagler though.
But, you can just let Bush win the elections, let some of th Sumpreme Court judges either retire or die, and let the Bushmaster appoint some judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. I'd feel for American women though, and American Civil Right organisations. Truly a huge step backwards.
Just my opinion, not worth getting upset about (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Eagler - the 'soul' and its interpretation is very much a personal view. You may believe in it in whatever way you wish; I believe that it is as much your right as any person's right to do what as they wish with their 'soul'. That is why I am pro-choice. Do you think that people should be allowed to have a different spirtuality to yourself?
Yes, I do. Though I think most things spiritual come from the same source. Each of us are entitled to their own beliefs or lack thereof.
Are you a pacifist, Eagler?
Pacifist - 90% of the time. Can't be put into the same class as say Ghandi but not an activist either. Don't go picketing in front of women clinics. There's extremes on both ends.
What are your thoughts on killing human beings that have been born?
Not quite sure what you mean here. Death penalty, yes. War, yes. For the fun of it - NO. (Virtual killing i.e. AH doesn't count right, as I do enjoy that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
Eagler
[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Heheh Eagler
I see we are on diametrically opposite positions on this issue (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Wish I could say I am concerned about my soul - I ain't though. I'm not good, but I ain't evil and in the long run, it really doesn't matter.
Had I been aborted, I'd not be here to write this obviously.
StSanta
This is your strongest argument for pro choice yet! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Have a great weekend
Eagler
-
OK,
Guys, there is no point arguing whenever a religion is involved. A religious doctrine does not have to be logical or consistent. It relies on acceptance of certain things as absolute truth. A religious person cannot reconsider those while remaining religious. Some religions specifically say when a fetus becomes a child, when the world was created, what food is not allowed or what actions, etc. Those statements may make no sence to the people of another religion or atheists but we all have to just accept existance if various "taboo" for different people.
Edog:
Let me extend my calculations one step further to make it more clear. About 22,000 of males of problematic social background were not born by 1991 as a result of abortions.
I do not have the numbers for the problematic social background group, but we know that african-americans are disproportionately represented in that group. For them the statistics is known. Currently of the african-american males 16 to 25 (35?) years of age 1/3 (33%)are either in jail or on parole (released from jail before the term they were sentenced to). That does not include those who served their term or who's parole period expired already.
So if we take conservative 40% 22,000, it means 8,800 of those people would have been criminals.
We would also need to get the statistics how many murders, rapes and violent assaults per year are commited by that number of criminals.
Consider that the effect started before 1991 - in 1987 when the first unborn criminal would would have reached age 16. 1991 was a peak when the rate actualy started going lower, but it's raise slowing down before due to abortions started before that.
Take another look ath the statistics. Violent is a leading cause of death among the same age/social group. Check how many of those 22,000 males and 22,000 females would have contributed to the murder statistics as victims?
I would say that the numbers should account for the most of the drop in the statistics.
There are other - secondary effects of the abotrions affecting the living people. Every person not saddled with an unwanted child most likely ended up higher on the social scale. She/he had greater chance to continue education, join the workforce, etc. Their social background became higher on average, so among them crime and other social evils became lower still!
Also, with lower number of criminals/lower crime rate the police was less swamped and became more efficient in preventing the remaining crime.
More businesses opened in the areas that became marginally more safe, providing employment and income to the affected areas and further improving their social background.
The inferences seem pretty straightforward to me to account for the most of the drop in the statistics.
Of coures there were other reasons. My friend who is a surgeon with extensive experience of work in the high crime neighbourhood states that switch from the illigal drugs that caused raised aggression to those that cause euphorea also contributed. So if we legalised drugs and provided the addicts with cheaper and safer ones, we would have long ago made them less aggressive and removed the need for them to rob people to get money for another fix. That money would not have gone to support organised crime.
miko
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
StSanta
This is your strongest argument for pro choice yet! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
So you are saying that you are missing those people that are not born? Do we experience a shortage? Right, we are down to the last six billion of people, so why don't we start some breeding programs.
I see no point in arguing the virtues of a religion, but I can catch people contradicting their own doctrine.
Here it comes: We are said to multiply and should not interfere with reproduction. It's God's will that the children are born or not. The overpopulation and other problems will be taken care of by the God in the usual way - wars, famines, deseases.
Because of "do not kill (murder?)", promoting wars is out. But how about hunger and desease? Isn't death is a much God's domain as life? If is is against his will to interfere with birth by using prevention methods, let alone abortions, how could it be not against his will to interfere with death?
If we were not supposed to die from cancer, we would not have cancer. Any medical research/treatment aimed at prolonging life should be as contrary to religious people as abortion.
In fact, there is a branch of cristianity in US that does not accept any medical treatment for any sickness (other then traume, obviously). No drugs whatsoever. They rely on the Gods's will and prayer and let people die from diabetis and other minor and easily treatable defects/ilnesses - often in major and prolonged pain because anesthetics are also out.
miko
-
There are other - secondary effects of the abotrions affecting the living people. Every person not saddled with an unwanted child most likely ended up higher on the social scale. She/he had greater chance to continue education, join the workforce, etc. Their social background became higher on average, so among them crime and other social evils became lower still!
Wow.. this is a great assumption. It seems you even have numbers to back it up.
Of course, you assume there are two options: 1) abortion 2) raising the child.
Your argument is flawed at the core.
AKDejaVu
-
I'll leave out any moral issues and just focus on equality.
In the US a woman's right to choose is sacred (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What I want to know is, how is it that the man has NO CHOICE or say in the abortion issue, yet if the woman chooses to have the baby, the man is suddenly equal in terms of support?
If the birth of any child in the USA is the sole choice of the woman, why are men jailed and forced to "pay up" when a child is born?
Until women take FULL respnsiblity for the choice they shouldn't have it. It is not equal as it is now, a woman's choice has just as much to do with a man's future as the baby's (or parasite as some said).
As long as pro-choice people can assume that the man will have to take responsibilty if the choice for life is made, they will not want to discuss the issue on a rational level.
Wrench
-
A man and a woman have to decide. The woman wants to, the man doesn't. The woman doesn't want to, the man does. It gets pretty complicated.
Your basic assumption is that the man has no say. I really don't know what society you live in, but as a rule in most... the man will have a say. Then, its just a matter of what the woman decides.
It only seems to be an issue when the woman doesn't want to have the baby... but the man does. Of course, its much more difficult to chart the number of times a man has pressured a woman into an abortion when she really didn't want to.
I really get tired of both sides on various abortion issues trying to make everything so cut and dry. The whole argument is cloudy and full of grey areas. Nothing is painfully obvious. Of course, it does make for an ideal environment for the sanctimonious self-righteous people from both sides to step in and do their thing.
AKDejaVu
-
Hehe wrench. The man can always skip town.
I don't normally get into these things, but:
Miko, I've seen this argument before, but statistics are shifty things, open to plenty of interpretation. Furthermore, it won't get you anywhere here.
Alright all you budding theologians out there, who seem to know so much Hebrew. "You shall not kill" you interpret as "murder". Know any Greek? Why does this commandment get exempted from J.C.'s interpretation in some sermon or other?
Further, I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to base this society on your notion of Divine Law. You claim that humans have souls, and that the quickening occurs at the moment of seminal conception. I don't think a human becomes even near rational until about age 4. Sainted catholic theologians believed the divinely created soul didn't get infused until 40 or 46 days after seminal conception (share a cigarette and an RU 486).
In short, your gods (or whichever one of them established the laws) might exist, and might indeed have laid down the law on the matter. But in a society where, I'm sorry, we just don't agree on such things, we've got to establish an arbitrary point where a human life begins; a point which is evident to all, and that's when the thing is physically separated from its host, birth.
You're not happy; you want some mystical biological moment you can't see through a microscope. I'm not happy, I want legalized infanticide up to age 4 (They're still parasites, dammit).
Dinger
(My God can beat up your god)
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Of course, you assume there are two options: 1) abortion 2) raising the child.
Your argument is flawed at the core.
AKDejaVu
I wish it was. I do realise it may be flawed but I do not see how and you are not helping.
Another thing that some people do not want to realize is, that there are two points here. 1 st - the society prospers from the phenomena most people abhorr.
2 nd - is there a way to achieve the same results some other way. I hate abortions as much as any other nonreligious guy and consider them necessary evil. Suggest a realistic way to make them unnecessary and I will support it. It does not make their beneficial consecuences null and void.
Our prosperity in US is based on extermination of the original population. We do not have to like it but we benefit from it by having this country to outselves rather then having to live elsewhere.
You see a problem with my numbers? Tell me.
I think your unvilinness to accept abortion makes you unwilling to accept a pretty clear reasoning. I am very familiar with that. I grew up in a state that was rewriting history to get rid of undesirable things in the past.
If Hitler did not do what he did, my parents would not have met and I would not have been born. I do not have to deny his evilness to accept that simple fact.
Dinger:
The issue of when the soul gets infused is irrelevant. The use of contraceptives like condoms and pills is also forbidden. Here we do not have conception yet. This is a matter of doctrine, not logic.
miko
-
Another thing that some people do not want to realize is, that there are two points here. 1 st - the society prospers from the phenomena most people abhorr.
Very bad wording and very inaccurate.
Just who exactly are you trying to help? Society? Many bad things have been done on behalf of one person's vision of society.
AKDejaVu
-
But the use of contraceptives and the practice of abortion are forbidden for different reasons, and have different peccatory valences. Logic and doctrine are not always, nor necessarily contradictory; indeed, some would argue that doctrine is supremely rational and supremely logical, just not to us in this life.
So, aborting a unquickened pregnancy would be venial: if it don't have a rational soul, by definition it ain't a human being. So the long-term, post-purgatory outlook's a helluva lot better than for those kickin' 'em out after spiritual conception.
Reminds me of some friends of mine in college who had a band called "Aborted Messiah"
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Quote:
"It seems that public funding of abortions returns much more bang for the buck then funding of jails, police, educational programs, etc."
Hitler and the Nazis woulda been proud.
Any idiot who has taken High School Biology knows Abortion is Murder. To say otherwise is merely an attempt to rationalize an act that should only be undertaken when the life of the mother is threatened.
Abortion as a "convenience", as "population control", or to "weed-out the undesireable" is an outrage.
To borrow from CNN's Bernard Shaw:
"For the purposes of this discussion, picture yourself as an unborn child whose "mother" is about to swallow RU-486 and flush your remains down the toilet. Can you tell us how you feel......"
"Pro-Choice my ass".
Cabby
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
I find it very male that a bunch of men are discussing something that only women should have a say in.
Go figure ...
Oh, yeah. Flame on ... heh.
-
(NOTE: I've edited this post, because though I'm not sure if an actual god-entity really exists, I would be very surprised if such a one would be anything but full of compassion for all things in this universe. Also, it's not right to belittle someones beliefs, no matter how at odds they may be with ones own.)
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 10-07-2000).]
-
I'm with leonid here.
It *is* cut out and very simple. The woman has to carry the the fetus, it's in her body, it's her choice. The male might influence her, but in no way is it ultimately his decision.
Unless you yourself are at risk of becoming directly involved I think it is wrong to have a say on whether one should be allowed a choice or not. As it is now, all males are safe and can sit on a piedestal condemning abortions.
It's sorta like a non skydiver telling a skydiver "no, you can't carry a reserve chute.".
What compelling arguments are there against abortion? The child killing bit? Well, since religions are arbitrary, we shoulkd go for available scientific amd to a much lesser extent judicial knowledge . While we cannot say when a fetus turns into a person on a second by second basis, it is clear that during some states of pregnancy, the fetus is NOT a person. Then there is the legal bit. Then there is the person vs person bit.
I haven't really seen any compelling arguments that would justify removng the right of self determination from a woman - and that is what this is really about.
Abortions aren't very much fun, I've heard. During my "troubled youth (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)", I had a friend who went through an abortion - first of all, physically, it ain't comfortable. Secondly, the emotional hurt is quite significant as well. Regardless of my personal opinions about abortions, it ain't up to me to decide what another human wants to do with their body.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
I say that abortion should be decided by the person himself, not by the community who has no idea of her living status.
More likely abortion than abandoned child on the streets.
Where they could end up because parents wouldn't look much after, if they couldn't have done abortion.
Most of us lives in so called 'free countries', where abortion should be invidual level of choice, not others.
Those who talks about murder, should then also avoid killing animals of any kind..
-
I think it is a crime, and a violation of human rights not to have the freedom of choice. I believe abortion should be strictly regulated (like guns), but not outlawed.
The young woman who is raped and pregnated has the right to have an abortion. It is not her fault and she did not decide to bring a child into this world at this time. She at least has the right to choose.
How can people here so patriotically sing about living in a country where you're free to choose how you wish to live, yet totally contridict themselves by saying that women should not have that right?
Also, why do you classify it as murder? Abortion is done before the fetus is even partially developed. All it is, is a bundle of cells going through mitosis, there is no consciousness yet. Should you have an abortion later on in the pregnancy, then yes, you could classify it as murder.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Quote:
"Also, why do you classify it as murder? Abortion is done before the fetus is even partially developed. All it is, is a bundle of cells going through mitosis, there is no consciousness yet. Should you have an abortion later on in the pregnancy, then yes, you could classify it as murder."
like i said..lame rationalizations....Also, to state that the "male" has no say in the life of an unborn-only on born children is not only illogical, it's stupid.
Cabby
-
Using your logic, other lame rationalizations cabby:
In every move we make, we murder tons of blood cells, but we dare not call it murder.
Birth certificates should be issued at conception. 72 hours after having sex, every woman should report to a clinic to see if a new citizen has into being.
Believe it or not, human life, and when it begins, is not an absolute concept. And I don't believe human beings begin existence at birth because I'm pro-choice, but vice versa; and I resent having someone suggest that my convictions are motivated by anything but a sincere belief.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 10-07-2000).]
-
Cabby:
Scientific knowledge is lame rationalisations.
I bet everyone who disagrees with you are full of lame rationalisations, right?
When facts are pulled out, they are lame rationalisations. When no facts are there, the people are just stupid.
I wish I could live in your black and white fantasy world.
What colour is the sky on the planet you live on?
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Notice how the libs always have to get the last word in? As if that makes them right.
Eagler
-
Eagler, who is classifying who?
Personally, if you want to label me a liberal, go ahead - Heaven forbid!
It is usually the convservatives who rant on about the freedom of choice, how every man deserves the right to bear arms because he has that right to choose.
What a typical, hypocritical statement. To put regulations on guns violates your right to free choice, but outlawing abortion does not?
Please...
Read up on cellular mitosis, the division of cells, the fertilization of the egg and trimesters. Then apply your newly found scientific understanding to abortion and the woman's right to choose before making your statements that legal abortion is murder.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Hey, i have a right to own a gun but i don't have the right to murder someone with it. Use some logic.
Quote:
"Read up on cellular mitosis, the division of cells, the fertilization of the egg and trimesters. Then apply your newly found scientific understanding to abortion and the woman's right to choose before making your statements that legal abortion is murder."
Your point???? BTW, i more than likely studied elementary biology long before you were even born. Which you were fortunate enough to be allowed to do.
Cabby
-
Heh he mentioned right to bear arms, not right to murder.
Quit twisting others words to fit your own agenda. That's not the first time I've seen that happen.
That and your call to logic and facts, then denouncing it is sort of amusing. Maybe if you smiled to the world, the world would smile to you.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
My point is, that any grade 9 student can tell you that the "fetus", at the time of abortion, is just a bundle of cells without it's own counsciousness yet. It is not murder.
Seriously now. I would bet if someone you loved was raped and pregnated, you would consider abortion even if you were against it. Believe it or not, I personally would not, I would have the child. But I believe the woman has the right to choose and to say otherwise violates her rights, not only as an american, but as a human being.
Like guns, abortions should be regulated. They should not be used as a form of birth control. They should be used only in circumstances similar to the above.
For you to tell a sane woman that she does not have the right to choose what is right for her is no differant than what you believe you fought for gaining your independance from Britian.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
My point is, that any grade 9 student can tell you that the "fetus", at the time of abortion, is just a bundle of cells without it's own counsciousness yet. It is not murder.
Jeez! We have to send this nurse back to 9th Grade!
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, stood at Dr. Haskell's side while he performed three partial-birth abortions in 1993. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17, 1995), Shafer described in detail the first of the three procedures-- which involved, she said, a baby boy at 26 1/2 weeks (over 6 months). According to Mrs. Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist:
"delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp."
...and there's this.......
Under the Supreme Court's doctrine, "viability" is regarded as the constitutionally significant demarcation. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court explicitly disavowed the "trimester framework" of Roe v. Wade (1973), and reaffirmed that "viability" is (in the Court's view) the constitutionally significant demarcation. "Viability" is the point at which a baby born prematurely can be sustained by good medical assistance. Currently, many babies are "viable" a full three weeks before the "third trimester." Therefore, most partial-birth abortions kill babies who are already "viable," or who are at most a few days or weeks short of viability.
"(Even at 20 weeks, the baby is seven inches long on average. And, as discussed below, at a March 21 congressional hearing leading medical authorities testified that the baby by this point is very sensitive to painful stimuli.)
At least one partial-birth abortion specialist, the late Dr. James McMahon, regularly performed the procedure even after 26 weeks-- even into the ninth month. In 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that explicitly showed that he aborted healthy ("not flawed") babies even in the third trimester (after 26 weeks of pregnancy). Dr. McMahon's own graph showed, for example, that at 29 or 30 weeks, one-fourth of the aborted babies had no "flaw" however slight."
Quote Igloo: They should not be used as a form of birth control. They should be used only in circumstances similar to the above.
Unfortunately, that's not how it's working out exactly, is it?
So, now we just ignore the ones we don't wish to talk about?
-
Toad, read my reply in 'RU ready for RU-486'.
Just because I agree with abortion, does not mean I agree with abortion at any stage. At 20 weeks the 'baby' is not a foetus, but is effectively a baby (CNS developed, major organs functioning). I don't necessarily agree with abortion at such a late stage in the pregnancy.
-
Well, good for you Dowding!
Now that you"don't necessarily agree with abortion at such a late stage in the pregnancy." what are you going to do about it?
We're not talking INANIMATE objects this time...these are definitely "animated."
Or shall we all stand by on the sidelines and just murmur "tsk, tsk, tsk"?
I don't know about you, but I REALLY didn't know what they were burning in those ovens! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You know what's worse? There's a booming business in selling fetal body parts. We're talking big money here. Brain tissue is especially valuable.
Let's see...limited supply, high demand...leads to high price....leads to
Go on. Guess. I don't want to spoil the suprise.
All together now, let's murmur "tsk, tsk"
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net7/gore.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Abortion at 6 months is wrong. The fetus is well developed. I've never heard of abortions being done that late here. In fact, I believe the law is that you cannot have an abortion if you're 5-6 weeks pregnant.
I didn't say "abortions for all!". I have been specifcally talking about regulating abortions.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Eagler, who is classifying who?
Personally, if you want to label me a liberal, go ahead - Heaven forbid!
It is usually the convservatives who rant on about the freedom of choice, how every man deserves the right to bear arms because he has that right to choose.
What a typical, hypocritical statement. To put regulations on guns violates your right to free choice, but outlawing abortion does not?
Please...
Read up on cellular mitosis, the division of cells, the fertilization of the egg and trimesters. Then apply your newly found scientific understanding to abortion and the woman's right to choose before making your statements that legal abortion is murder.
Guess I'm old fashion, I believe when you kill a living thing on purpose that is murder. Justify it anyway you like so you can sleep at night, doesn't change the fact that something or someone once living is now dead ... seems black and white to me. Personally we skipped on the abortion option when I was 19 and she was 18 ( don’t think I gave it a second thought, quit college and got a job), 21 years later we are still happily married with two great sons and now, just last week, a beautiful grand daughter. Just like child birth, abortion is forever. Can't imagine all the second guessing that goes into that decision years down the road. I really pity those who make that choice. They are in our thoughts and prayers. Then again society has become so self-centered, maybe they don't give it a second thought. I doubt it though.
A child is a miracle, the reason to carry on in this otherwise screwed up world.
Eagler
ps
Igloo - I was refering to StSanta when I mentioned about getting in the last word on most of these conservative posts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Eagler - then you are a pacifist and would be a conscientious objector, should you be called to fight? What you chose was exactly that, your choice - I'm happy its worked out for you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I would not deny outright other people's decision to abort.
Toad - you don't know me, who I am or what I do in my life. What's the point you are making here? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Just because my POV is a little more complicated than "that's wrong" or "that's right", don't take the piss.
BTW - A foetus exists between 4-8 weeks.
-
Eagler, I'm sure many of the hunters and fishermen here would disagree with that.
"I believe when you kill a living thing on purpose that is murder."
Personally, I would say that when you kill a conscious human being, it is murder. A fetus is not yet a conscious human being.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Eagler, I'm sure many of the hunters and fishermen here would disagree with that.
"I believe when you kill a living thing on purpose that is murder."
Personally, I would say that when you kill a conscious human being, it is murder. A fetus is not yet a conscious human being.
Like I said, I live in a black and white world. I see most of our problems in that gray area. Yes, fishing and hunting are a form of murder, to me, when I boil it down. Love to fish, don't hunt. And yes I don't particularly enjoy the cleaning aspect of a fishing trip when they are flopping around on the board. Guess I am a borderline vegetarian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but those steaks sure do smell good on the grill (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Hard enough for me to justify killing animals to eat let alone killing a defenseless human being. Yep, I think it's a human from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. You pocket protector types are just splitting hairs to justify your lifestyle.
Eagler
-
Toad:
come on, now yer making appeals to emotions, a logical fallacy. You can do better than that.
Some gun supporter said that the only thing they have to do for the anti gunners to win is not to do anything - i.e they are fighting to preserve a right. With abortion, it's the same; one group wants to remove a right, another wants to keep it.
There is a host of problems when you grant a fetus personhood before it is born.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:
"It seems that public funding of abortions returns much more bang for the buck then funding of jails, police, educational programs, etc."
Hitler and the Nazis woulda been proud.
Cabby
I see. If I detect something happening in real life and measure it it still does not exist, until I mention it in public.
Let's pretend our society does not benefit from things we dislike and make Stalin and communists proud!
BTW, Hitler used to build roads. Save out country from nazism - say no to roads!!!
miko
-
Quote:
"There is a host of problems when you grant a fetus personhood before it is born."
No toejam. Like, for instance: Murder a pregnant woman and you can be(should be)executed for two murders.
Abortion Supporters want to play "God"(they know when life begins-what arrogance!!!!!), but they consistently show themselves to be unqualified for the job.
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Well, if you were worried about playing God, you wouldn't execute anyone.
"Thou shalt not kill", remember?
Not "Thou shalt not kill anyone, except those who commit terrible crimes, those ones are ok..."
Contridictions abound...
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
[This message has been edited by Igloo (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
It's "Thou Shalt Not Murder from the Hebrew. And if you equate executing Murderers with flushing an un-born child down the toilet, well, what can i say.....
Cabby
-
Well, Cab, it's like this.
For example, if you MURDER a husband and wife and their two young kids in a gruesome, painful way because you want to boff the wife and drive the car, then society might convict your sorry butt and send you to prison for the rest of your life.
You should not suffer any deprivation, however. Three squares, a cell with a decent bed, cable TV, workout equipment, law libraries so you can clog the courts with "how I was done wrong" petitions...all of that and more.
If you can make it as a guardhouse lawyer, you may even get out of the life sentence and earn parole.
All the while, your anti-Death Penalty friends will be watching to make sure mean old society doesn't pick on you too hard. Despite eyewitnesses, DNA proof, stop action/instant replay security cameras or whatever. You're a piece of human garbage but we love you enough to keep you around.
However, if you're say...an unlucky 25 week old unborn human (the US Supreme Court thinks you are a "viable human") whose mother is say...16 years old, it's open season on your little butt.
Your Mom has "pediatric indications". That means that while she's old enough to screw her boyfriend, she's just too young to have a baby. It also is an officially "legitimate" approved reason for the Doc to slip you 90% out of your happy home and slap a scissors into the back of your head. He'll then suck your brains out with a vacuum and sell them for tissue research. (BTW, your Mom gets none of the cash. The doc pockets most of it and it's a nice chunk nowadays.)
After all...your MOM is entitled to a CHOICE.
..and society can't possibly afford to raise you in a foster home or orphange or something like that. Well, something maybe even like the murderer gets...sorry, just can't. You gotta go.
The best part is that those very same people that will hold candlelight vigils and petition the courts to keep the guy who murdered the family alive........
just don't give a sh*t about you!
Now, Cab...does that clear this up a bit?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Geesh.
I think I am outta this debate - if you cannot get the simplest of definitions straight, what's the point of debating?
You must send me money, btw, because I am an unborn God.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
I am against the death penalty, but I also think that the prisons need to wake up and stop treating criminals so good. They should have a concrte cell, concrete bed with a sheet or two depending on the temperature. Three meals a day, but only the basics of food. And most of all, no luxeries. Right now the prison system is a joke. Especially the Canadian female branch.
I've never read the Hebrew Bible, but the Christian Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Not that one is more right than the other.
As I've said before, abortions should not be used as a last step for birth control. If your 13 y/o daughter is old enough to take on the responsibility of having sex, then she is old enough to bear the responsibilties that come thereafter (the parents are at fault here as well). But if your daughter is raped and pregnated, that is a different story all together and the right to abortion should be there.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Toad - Prison should not be easy, I agree.
However, have you ever been in jail, for any length of time? I'm just interested in your view that is in some way easy. Let me just highlight a few experiences described to me by family who have been 'inside':
1) You get a wash once a week
2) You might spend alot of your time trying not to be bopped up the bellybutton by some nonce
3) Or beaten up repeatedly for f**k all
4) Inside 4-walls 23 hours a day
5) Until recently, in UK prisons you used to have to use a bucket and 'slop' out every morning
I wouldn't call any of that easy, by my standards anyway. You might say it isn't hard enough, but until you have all your rights taken away you'll never know.
I'm not against imprisonment, BTW - 'if you can't do the time...' etc etc etc.
Igloo - I agree with what you say. Abortions shouldn't be used instead of birth control, and I personally think that abortion before 2 months is acceptable. Abortion after rape - can't see why anyone would want to refuse the victim the choice.
I wish I lived in the black and white world some of you seem to inhabit.
As for 'playing god' - do you live in a cave or something, reliant on the hand that nature deals you? Do you refuse all medical treatment when you're sick? Surely the doctors are 'playing god', as are all judges, juries and the police? They seem to know when life should end.
We've been playing god for thousands of years - deciding who lives, who dies is a good example.
-
Like it or not, once Pandora's box is opened things like that happen. Particularly in the US where the right number of $ will convince some doctor to justify it.
So how many will you guys ignore? How many does it take to get your attention?
One?
A thousand?
Six million?
-
Six million?
What are you implying?
What are we being accused of ignoring?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-12-2000).]
-
Well, let's see...
I look around the US and the world and I see a pretty large and vocal group that wants to restrict firearms in many ways...even though there isn't a single shred of proof that these programs work at all, let alone that they are as effective as something like Project Exile.
I look around the US and the world and I see a pretty large and vocal group that feels warehousing irrefutably proven and convicted murderers (note: not all fit this description. Some, however, are guilty beyond even the tiniest bit of doubt) for the rest of their natural lives is fine and hang the expense.
I look around the US and the world and I see a pretty large and vocal group that feels "a woman must have CHOICE", no matter what the extent and duration of her pregnancy.
I just wonder when there's going to be a loud and vocal group that stands up and yells "Hey! It's WRONG to stick a scissors into the skull of a 95% delivered, 25 week old viable human fetus!"
Because all I see now is people who say..."Golly gee...I'm just slightly uncomfortable with that...I wish it would just go away."
Where is the outrage?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I just wonder when there's going to be a loud and vocal group that stands up and yells "Hey! It's WRONG to stick a scissors into the skull of a 95% delivered, 25 week old viable human fetus!"
I agree, abortions should not be performed at such a late stage (I get the feeling I've said this before). Also, it ain't a foetus at 25 weeks, it is a baby.
Basically, it sounds to me like you want everyone to share your views, values and opinions. Any opinion that might contradict yours is simply invalid.
There is outrage - you just happen to disagree with it.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Nope, as you and others have so correctly pointed out it would be a pretty boring world if we all liked the same things.
I don't mind opinions that contradict mine one bit. I am much more impressed and MUCH more likely to be swayed by opinions that can be backed by fact, however.
...and there's the problem. I haven't seen to awfully many "liberal" positions in the O-Club backed by anything more than personal opinion, unjustified faith in the "better angels of human nature", wishful thinking or dreams of a "better world".
Wonderful, admirable thoughts indeed. So far from demonstrable fact and hard-nosed uncaring reality.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-13-2000).]
-
Toad, sort of like calling a fetus an unborn baby, eh?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Santa, talk to Dowding, your fellow traveler. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dowding: Also, it ain't a foetus at 25 weeks, it is a baby.