Page 6 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Abortion
Should be illegal, except in extreme cases 25%  25%  [ 14 ]
Should be legal during the first trimester only 24%  24%  [ 13 ]
Should be legal beyond the first trimester 47%  47%  [ 26 ]
Undecided 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 55

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 6:03 pm

Tensu wrote:
However I am one who believes in the right of the individual, and I do not believe that anyone needs someone else's consent to remain alive once they are already living. I do not mean to ignore the fact that the mother is an individual with rights as well, but since the mother already had many chances to prevent it from coming to that point, and since the child has more to lose, my sympathy rests with the child.



A woman, forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will, stands to lose her job, her chances for an education, her existing children, and, indeed, her life.
I'm wondering what, in comparison, a fetus would lose, if aborted.

Pointing out that "most people" view termination of life issues
at least partly through a lens pertaining to how great the loss of POTENTIAL life (that is, years unlived which would have been)
is a bit of an argumentum ad populum.
I really have no use for herd mentalities.

I don't believe anyone needs someone else's consent to remain alive, either, or to do anything else,
EXCEPT when doing so involves the autonomy of someone else.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 18 Mar 2011, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 6:08 pm

91 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.


Human beings have inherent value in my view. They are justified simply by their existence. If it is not human life, then what sort of life is it Bethie?


What does the (subjective) value of human beings have to do with anything?
The fetus is biological life, and genetically human. How, exactly, does that negate the physical autonomy of women?

Your implication is that valuing human beings and advocating total autonomical freedom are truly dichotomous philosophies,
when, for many, the latter is resultant OF the former.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Mar 2011, 6:36 pm

Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.


Human beings have inherent value in my view. They are justified simply by their existence. If it is not human life, then what sort of life is it Bethie?


What does the (subjective) value of human beings have to do with anything?
The fetus is biological life, and genetically human. How, exactly, does that negate the physical autonomy of women?


Because we're talking about two lives at the very least, not simply the woman's life. If we hold the woman's physical autonomy paramount we are looking at the death of a human being. If we hold the child's life as paramount then the woman can give the child up for adoption after it is born and shed all responsibility towards said child (this is where there is no loss of life). The choice is between: A few months of hardship for the mother carrying a child or a dead child. Sorry but pregnency's don't last an entire lifetime while killing a child in the womb deprives the child of his/her right to exist. So, I'm going to hold the child's life paramount.

Bethie wrote:
Your implication is that valuing human beings and advocating total autonomical freedom are truly dichotomous philosophies,
when, for many, the latter is resultant OF the former.


And most abortions are due to two irresponsible individuals not keeping their pants on and don't want to deal with the consequences. Well how about you take responsibility for your actions for a change, that goes for both of the child's parents.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 6:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Because we're talking about two lives at the very least, not simply the woman's life. If we hold the woman's physical autonomy paramount we are looking at the death of a human being.

You don't get it.
For me, a couple bloody panty liners is no tragedy.
Research consequentialism, specifically utilitarianism, if you're interested in a two-sided discourse,
as opposed to preaching your own view. (After attempting to interact with you before, I suspect the latter.)
Inuyasha wrote:
If we hold the child's life as paramount (by forcing a woman to carry it and give birth against her will) then the woman can give the child up for adoption after it is born and shed all responsibility towards said child (this is where there is no loss of life).

Bolded portion added. This entire conversation is about how you might (or might not) be able to justify that.
Inuyasha wrote:
And most abortions are due to two irresponsible individuals not keeping their pants on and don't want to deal with the consequences. Well how about you take responsibility for your actions for a change, that goes for both of the child's parents.

Abortion is most certainly a means of dealing with the consequences.
It's just not a means you approve of. :lol:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,294

18 Mar 2011, 7:42 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.


Human beings have inherent value in my view. They are justified simply by their existence. If it is not human life, then what sort of life is it Bethie?


What does the (subjective) value of human beings have to do with anything?
The fetus is biological life, and genetically human. How, exactly, does that negate the physical autonomy of women?


Because we're talking about two lives at the very least, not simply the woman's life. If we hold the woman's physical autonomy paramount we are looking at the death of a human being. If we hold the child's life as paramount then the woman can give the child up for adoption after it is born and shed all responsibility towards said child (this is where there is no loss of life). The choice is between: A few months of hardship for the mother carrying a child or a dead child. Sorry but pregnency's don't last an entire lifetime while killing a child in the womb deprives the child of his/her right to exist. So, I'm going to hold the child's life paramount.

Bethie wrote:
Your implication is that valuing human beings and advocating total autonomical freedom are truly dichotomous philosophies,
when, for many, the latter is resultant OF the former.


And most abortions are due to two irresponsible individuals not keeping their pants on and don't want to deal with the consequences. Well how about you take responsibility for your actions for a change, that goes for both of the child's parents.


Not necessarily, sometimes it is the ones that are considered very responsible that believe in abstinence that fall to the more powerful instinct of the sexual drive. And, sometimes it is the responsible parents of those responsible young people that engaged in sex, that insist that their child has the abortion.

A good measure to reduce abortions would be to promote the idea that abstinence is not an effective means of birthcontrol. Especially, today where sex sells almost everything in our culture.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

18 Mar 2011, 8:06 pm

aghogday wrote:
A good measure to reduce abortions would be to promote the idea that abstinence is not an effective means of birthcontrol. Especially, today where sex sells almost everything in our culture.


Nod, nod.

In my hometown,
if teenagers wanted condoms, they had to ask for them from a locked case from a grocery store manager who probably went to church or was on the school board with their parents.

No wonder I got to see 6 month pregnant 15 year olds wearing the free "Abstinence" t shirts they were given in "sex ed" class.

Rather than moralizing about what they believe the "correct" choice to be when it comes to when, where, and with whom to have sex,
those against abortion should be focusing on a REALISTIC view of what young people are doing,
and ensure condoms are as easily-available as gum.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,294

18 Mar 2011, 10:29 pm

Bethie wrote:
aghogday wrote:
A good measure to reduce abortions would be to promote the idea that abstinence is not an effective means of birthcontrol. Especially, today where sex sells almost everything in our culture.


Nod, nod.

In my hometown,
if teenagers wanted condoms, they had to ask for them from a locked case from a grocery store manager who probably went to church or was on the school board with their parents.

No wonder I got to see 6 month pregnant 15 year olds wearing the free "Abstinence" t shirts they were given in "sex ed" class.

Rather than moralizing about what they believe the "correct" choice to be when it comes to when, where, and with whom to have sex,
those against abortion should be focusing on a REALISTIC view of what young people are doing,
and ensure condoms are as easily-available as gum.


It would be nice if the pill and IUD's were readily available to teenagers, but of course the parent must be involved; hopefully communication between parents and children will improve in regard to this. And yes, we need an effort in the distribution of condoms like they did in the last Olympic games.

Anti-abortion groups might be able to fund raise to donate them at distribution points. School would be a great place for distribution, but it probably wouldn't be seen as politically correct. The health department might be a good place along with educational materials. I know they already distribute the pill for people on medicaid.

This should be one of the selling points for "the obamacare" that so many anti-abortion advocates are against. The expansion of medicaid to single women making under $14,000 a year is going to make the pill a reality for many that don't have access to it now. And there are many abortions that occur within marriage so the expansion of medicaid to families making under $29,000 will also allow many more people to effectively control birth through the pill.

Just the ability to get insurance will make a choice to have a child easier, and the ability to get prenatal care will make it more likely that the child is born healthy, along with the mother having better odds of having a complication free pregnancy.

It is a very scary thought for a family to have a child without healthcare. I don't think one can under estimate the positive impact that the healthcare reform act will have in reducing abortion.



Last edited by aghogday on 18 Mar 2011, 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Mar 2011, 10:38 pm

aghogday wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.


Human beings have inherent value in my view. They are justified simply by their existence. If it is not human life, then what sort of life is it Bethie?


What does the (subjective) value of human beings have to do with anything?
The fetus is biological life, and genetically human. How, exactly, does that negate the physical autonomy of women?


Because we're talking about two lives at the very least, not simply the woman's life. If we hold the woman's physical autonomy paramount we are looking at the death of a human being. If we hold the child's life as paramount then the woman can give the child up for adoption after it is born and shed all responsibility towards said child (this is where there is no loss of life). The choice is between: A few months of hardship for the mother carrying a child or a dead child. Sorry but pregnency's don't last an entire lifetime while killing a child in the womb deprives the child of his/her right to exist. So, I'm going to hold the child's life paramount.

Bethie wrote:
Your implication is that valuing human beings and advocating total autonomical freedom are truly dichotomous philosophies,
when, for many, the latter is resultant OF the former.


And most abortions are due to two irresponsible individuals not keeping their pants on and don't want to deal with the consequences. Well how about you take responsibility for your actions for a change, that goes for both of the child's parents.


Not necessarily, sometimes it is the ones that are considered very responsible that believe in abstinence that fall to the more powerful instinct of the sexual drive. And, sometimes it is the responsible parents of those responsible young people that engaged in sex, that insist that their child has the abortion.

A good measure to reduce abortions would be to promote the idea that abstinence is not an effective means of birthcontrol. Especially, today where sex sells almost everything in our culture.


Actually it is the only 100% effective means of avoiding pregnency if people actually follow it. (barring virgin births)



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,294

18 Mar 2011, 11:41 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Bethie

There is nothing about having a life that makes a human being a person, rather it is simply having life that makes one a human being.


Most life is actually NON-human.

Although I'm not at all sure how the distinction of "human" or "non-human" is relevant in the context in question.


Human beings have inherent value in my view. They are justified simply by their existence. If it is not human life, then what sort of life is it Bethie?


What does the (subjective) value of human beings have to do with anything?
The fetus is biological life, and genetically human. How, exactly, does that negate the physical autonomy of women?


Because we're talking about two lives at the very least, not simply the woman's life. If we hold the woman's physical autonomy paramount we are looking at the death of a human being. If we hold the child's life as paramount then the woman can give the child up for adoption after it is born and shed all responsibility towards said child (this is where there is no loss of life). The choice is between: A few months of hardship for the mother carrying a child or a dead child. Sorry but pregnency's don't last an entire lifetime while killing a child in the womb deprives the child of his/her right to exist. So, I'm going to hold the child's life paramount.

Bethie wrote:
Your implication is that valuing human beings and advocating total autonomical freedom are truly dichotomous philosophies,
when, for many, the latter is resultant OF the former.


And most abortions are due to two irresponsible individuals not keeping their pants on and don't want to deal with the consequences. Well how about you take responsibility for your actions for a change, that goes for both of the child's parents.


Not necessarily, sometimes it is the ones that are considered very responsible that believe in abstinence that fall to the more powerful instinct of the sexual drive. And, sometimes it is the responsible parents of those responsible young people that engaged in sex, that insist that their child has the abortion.

A good measure to reduce abortions would be to promote the idea that abstinence is not an effective means of birthcontrol. Especially, today where sex sells almost everything in our culture.


Actually it is the only 100% effective means of avoiding pregnency if people actually follow it. (barring virgin births)


There are plenty of studies that indicate that comprehensive sex education including information on effective means of birthcontrol are more effective that abstinence only programs. There is little evidence that abstinence only programs delay the intiation of sexual activity among young people. Results from one such study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Your decision to abstain from sex until marriage is a good one, if you can actually follow it, but a wise person usually has a plan B in their back pocket in case plan A doesn't work out. This is why comprehensive sex education is more effective that abstinence only; it allows for plan B and plan C. Plan C with the pill works the best in the real world if a women wants to avoid pregnancy.

When trying to avoid pregnancy in the heat of the moment abstinence is the least effective followed by a condom followed by the pill. Why is the pill the most effective? Because the decision to use it does not have to be made in the heat of the moment.

As far as the heat of the moment goes; it's in almost every nook and cranny of our culture.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

18 Mar 2011, 11:49 pm

aghogday wrote:
As far as the heat of the moment goes; it's in almost every nook and cranny of our culture.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTvWvfEMxE[/youtube]


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Mar 2011, 11:57 pm

@ aghogday

A good way to avoid having premarital sex for starters is don't do illegal substances and don't drink alcohol. Getting drunk or high makes one lose their sense of judgement.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Mar 2011, 12:07 am

Inuyasha wrote:
@ aghogday

A good way to avoid having premarital sex for starters is don't do illegal substances and don't drink alcohol. Getting drunk or high makes one lose their sense of judgement.


People still want to have sex regardless of intoxication; blaming it on sex, drugs and rock & roll hasn't worked for the past 50 years, why would it suddenly now?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Mar 2011, 12:09 am

Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ aghogday

A good way to avoid having premarital sex for starters is don't do illegal substances and don't drink alcohol. Getting drunk or high makes one lose their sense of judgement.


People still want to have sex regardless of intoxication; blaming it on sex, drugs and rock & roll hasn't worked for the past 50 years, why would it suddenly now?


Well it sure as heck doesn't help.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,294

19 Mar 2011, 12:31 am

Inuyasha wrote:
@ aghogday

A good way to avoid having premarital sex for starters is don't do illegal substances and don't drink alcohol. Getting drunk or high makes one lose their sense of judgement.


Very true, and another type of abstinence valued but not practiced by many young people. The problem is "the heat of the moment" is as powerful as alcohol or any drug, especially if a person is young and their hormones are raging.

I think I remember you saying you are 28; if you've held out this long and haven't indulged in alcohol, sex, and drugs, you are a very disciplined individual; no reason for me to believe that you won't meet those goals without plan B or C.

I didn't abstain from the alcohol and wasn't one to worry about plan B or C; let's just say I was lucky, stupid, and felt immortal like so many people do when they are young. I wouldn't have traded that experience of youthful exhiliration for anything in my life.

There was no such thing as sex education when I was growing up; the little talk about the birds and bees I got from my mother was no more useful than what you see on the animal planet. To be honest, the only thing that kept me out of trouble was the good sense of the women in my life that used plan C.

I got my talk about the birds and the bees in the days when genie couldn't show her belly button on TV. Can't imagine what it would be like as a teenager today. Thank goodness they legalized the pill just days before I was born.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,294

19 Mar 2011, 12:58 am

Vigilans wrote:
aghogday wrote:
As far as the heat of the moment goes; it's in almost every nook and cranny of our culture.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTvWvfEMxE[/youtube]


Thank you for that brief moment of synchronicity. Coming out of a depression that I thought would kill me, I broke out in a youthful feeling at age 22 (in 1982) that lasted for 23 years; now it seems like those 23 years were the "heat of the moment" for me. That whole album by Asia was a defining moment in my life.

Memories of the beach at night and dreams I couldn't imagine that came true. Life truly is too short from abstaining from the joys that it can bring. My depression at 21, motivated me to enjoy as much of it as I could. There is nothing like youth combined with the "Heat of the Moment".

On a sober note, no one can stop young people from having sex; not a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago, not now, or a hundred years from now. There is more sexual content in our society than I would have ever imagined. I don't know how young people have time to think about anything else. That is why people need as much access to birthcontrol as possible.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:58 am

Bethie wrote:
Rather than moralizing about what they believe the "correct" choice to be when it comes to when, where, and with whom to have sex,
those against abortion should be focusing on a REALISTIC view of what young people are doing.


Inuyasha wrote:
Actually it is the only 100% effective means of avoiding pregnency if people actually follow it. (barring virgin births)



lol! :lol:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.