Abortion - is it wrong?

[blackout]

She is saying that your use of the word inconvenient - although horribly misspelled - is like saying that one feels a little down when one has major depression. Do you have children? Do you understand what she's trying to tell you?

Thank you.

 

[blackout]

That said,
Major Depression does not count as a matter of great enough import
to those who feel abortion is only necesssary for the health of a woman
who is bleeding to death on the hospital table.

To this mindset,
Major Depression is merely an inconvenience.
(or a veeeeeery verrrrry 'not convienent' thing)

As opposed to the very serious health issue it is.

Bleeding to death on the hospital table,
may surpass inconvenience
in the minds of some anti-abortion law supporters.

Even rape aparantely falls under the category of inconvenience.

Rape and Pregnancy and Depression = awkward, discommoding, disobliging, incommoding

 

[Me Myself]

She is saying that your use of the word inconvenient - although horribly misspelled - is like saying that one feels a little down when one has major depression. Do you have children? Do you understand what she's trying to tell you?

A "little" down is talking about measure or amount of "downess". So it cannot be equated to "depression" acurately, becauuse depression would be "a lot" "down", not a "little". "inconvinient" is simple saying that it is not convinient. It doesn´t talk about how convinient it is.

If Ihad said a "little" inconvinient, the matter would have been different.

 

[Me Myself]

That said,
Major Depression does not count as a matter of great enough import
to those who feel abortion is only necesssary for the health of a woman
who is bleeding to death on the hospital table.

If by murdering one person you can save one person from a situation were two would have died, is this murder wrong?

I would say no.

but on general accounts, murder is still wrong. And on general accounts (specially given the numbers thas has just recently been provided of what is the most common ase for abortion) it is plain very very wrong o.o.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe I am looking at the numbers wrong? I should re-check tomorrow, but what iamlooking seems to confirm my stance. Very little of those confirmed correct use of their contraceptive method, and that is even those who say that used it correctly.

Besides it says "duringthe month" that doesn´t mean everytime. Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Only 1% of this was forced sex, so as I said this unwanted circumstances persist to be an ecception. A really uncommon one.




Should we adjust morals to fit the legal system? I think it should be the other way around. I am no lawyer, but special clauses have always been made and can always be made.

By the data you yourself put, most of this pregnancies come from irresponsable sex, people that most of them can´t even confirm proper use of their contraceptive methods and almost half of them didn´t even use contraceptive methods! only a 1% of this almost half of them (that would be around 0.5% of total more or less? ) has the very unfortunate case of being raped. So now the raping would have two victims.

Peachy.

I may re-see the data tomorrow and I do apologies if the time has made me have mistakes (I shouldn´t respond at this hours, but I like discussing stuff ) but forwhat I immidiatly see it is pretty much "Woops, baby, you know what to do honey because I ain´t taking care of that!"

So your reasoning is, even though it is possible for women to terminate a pregnancy safely, early and cheaply - long before the embryo develops the capacity to suffer - it is reasonable to expect that she totally abandon whatever she has been doing and embark on a completely different, costly, stressful, selfless life path for at least 18 years - all because of a slip-up with birth control that lasted maybe ten or twenty minutes?

No, I think if abortion is made illegal vasectomies will have to be made compulsory. It's not fair to expect women to make all the sacrifices needed to satisfy religion's irrational narcissism vis a vis the value of a "potential" human life.

 

[Me Myself]

So your reasoning is, even though it is possible for women to terminate a pregnancy safely, early and cheaply - long before the embryo develops the capacity to suffer - it is reasonable to expect that she totally abandon whatever she has been doing and embark on a completely different, costly, stressful, selfless life path for at least 18 years - all because of a slip-up with birth control that lasted maybe ten or twenty minutes?

no, murdering is a much better option. That way you make somebody else who has done absolutely no-thing wrong pay for you.

When life is not fair, one should always be able to murder one´s way out of it!

No, I think if abortion is made illegal vasectomies will have to be made compulsory.

I respect women´s right to not have sex with an un-vasectomized men if they don´t want to. It´s their body and they are not killing anyone

It's not fair to expect women to make ask the sacrifices to satisfy religion's irrational narcissism vis a vis the value of a "potential" human life.

1-Of an actual human life

2-Which religion? I am not talking in behalf of any religion. I am talking in behalf of human value.

3-The men should be bound by law to make themselves accountable for the baby both inside and outside the mother´s womb. Yes, I agree that it is not the same, but I didn´t invent biology, I am merely saying human life should not be thrown away like that.

 

[blackout]

It is entirely possible to bleed to death internally-- emotionally.

This is what happens to people who are forced to remain in situations
that feed their depression.
As well, when they are forced to deal with more than they can handle.

People die inside.

I'm suprised that people are not more aware of this grievious sadness.
Emotional death,
can be so much worse than physical death.
At least physical death is an ending.
Emotional death goes on and on...
till there is a total break down.
It is a life of constant continual pain,
then, if you are lucky, numbness.
Not so lucky? Psychosis.
All this, If not properly treated and dealt with,
and cared for.

 

[blackout]

It is entirely possible to bleed to death internally-- emotionally.

This is what happens to people who are forced to remain in situations
that feed their depression.
As well, when they are forced to deal with more than they can handle.

People die inside.

I'm suprised that people are not more aware of this grievious sadness.
Emotional death,
can be so much worse than physical death.
At least physical death is an ending.
Emotional death goes on and on...
till there is a total break down.
It is a life of constant continual pain,
then, if you are lucky, numbness.
Not so lucky? Psychosis.
All this, If not properly treated and dealt with,
and cared for.

The mother is supposed to care for the baby,
yet WHO is going to care for the mother,
who is irreparably harmed physically, mentally and emotionally
as a result of forced labour and child birth?

And in so many of those cases,
WHO is going to properly love and take care of those babies,
that they will not suffer the same fate.

 

[Alceste]

no, murdering is a much better option. That way you make somebody else who has done absolutely no-thing wrong pay for you.

When life is not fair, one should always be able to murder one´s way out of it!



I respect women´s right to not have sex with an un-vasectomized men if they don´t want to. It´s their body and they are not killing anyone



1-Of an actual human life

2-Which religion? I am not talking in behalf of any religion. I am talking in behalf of human value.

3-The men should be bound by law to make themselves accountable for the baby both inside and outside the mother´s womb. Yes, I agree that it is not the same, but I didn´t invent biology, I am merely saying human life should not be thrown away like that.

Which religion? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Catholicism.

Do me a favor please and stop calling millions of women murderers for terminating unplanned pregnancy. It's not very endearing. I will bet you I could show you pictures of a human zygote and three other cell clusters and you would not be able to tel me which is the "child" that would be "murdered" if the woman it lived in decided not to continue the pregnancy.

 

[Drolefille]

Maybe I am looking at the numbers wrong? I should re-check tomorrow, but what iamlooking seems to confirm my stance. Very little of those confirmed correct use of their contraceptive method, and that is even those who say that used it correctly.

That is not "whoops we forgot the condom" except maybe you could argue in the 26% that did not use and had unintended sex.
That is also primarily impoverished women.
Do you honestly thing that if it were as simple as a 'whoops condom' people would spend the money on an abortion rather than EC?
Taking a BC bill correctly or using a condom correctly is less common than you'd think. IUDs and implants are the only way to guarantee that your BC is functional and correct.

Besides it says "duringthe month" that doesn´t mean everytime. Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Only 1% of this was forced sex, so as I said this unwanted circumstances persist to be an ecception. A really uncommon one.

Because knowing the conception date is rare unless you only have sex once a month.

Should we adjust morals to fit the legal system? I think it should be the other way around. I am no lawyer, but special clauses have always been made and can always be made.

So, it's a person except sometimes it's not? It's a death except sometimes it's ok?
If 70% of pregnancies naturally end in death by the time that the majority of abortions occur, why is abortion somehow worse?

By the data you yourself put, most of this pregnancies come from irresponsable sex, people that most of them can´t even confirm proper use of their contraceptive methods and almost half of them didn´t even use contraceptive methods! only a 1% of this almost half of them (that would be around 0.5% of total more or less? ) has the very unfortunate case of being raped. So now the raping would have two victims.

It's good to know you do everything perfectly and would totally drop your life to raise a child. When you can spend nine months carrying it too then you can intervene.
If you take your pill an hour late, for any reason, you're taking it inconsistently. That puts you at risk for pregnancy for the next week or so. But no, they're being irresponsible and just aborting babies because it's fun and doesn't hurt at all!

I may re-see the data tomorrow and I do apologies if the time has made me have mistakes (I shouldn´t respond at this hours, but I like discussing stuff ) but forwhat I immidiatly see it is pretty much "Woops, baby, you know what to do honey because I ain´t taking care of that!"

You've made plenty of mistakes here.

Let me put it to you this way. if you banned abortion, women would return to what they've done for thousands of years, coathangers, pills, ODing on vitamin C, being beaten in the stomach, because the stigma of an unwed mother, the cost of an unplanned child, the inability to take one's psych medications, etc. are SO horrible that they would risk DEATH to not give birth. Banning abortion will lead to the death of the most vulnerable women - the poor, minorities, the abused, children and teens.

Now, solve all those other problems - remove the stigma, the cost, make medications safe to take while pregnant, and you still have the issue of the physical health of the mother. So make an exception for that, so that a woman isn't allowed to bleed to death, leaving her other children without a mother for the sake of an embryo that does not have lungs because it is the size of a grape. And do all of this without telling a woman she has to keep her legs shut or she's a tramp while patting the men on the back for their virility. Creating artificial wombs to remove unwanted embryos and gestate them to viability would be a bonus.

Then, and only then might I concede that abortion isn't necessary. Because here's the thing, in my mind, even if the fetus met the definition of person, as long as it relies on a woman's body for life support, she gets to make the choice about whether she allows it to remain there. But if you're going to take that right away from her, then you better damn well be willing to take care of every single one of those issues for every single woman.

 

[Drolefille]

A "little" down is talking about measure or amount of "downess". So it cannot be equated to "depression" acurately, becauuse depression would be "a lot" "down", not a "little". "inconvinient" is simple saying that it is not convinient. It doesn´t talk about how convinient it is.

If Ihad said a "little" inconvinient, the matter would have been different.

This is her point. That the word inconvenient is not the correct word because on a matter of scale it does not even begin to adequately express the truth. If you want a better analogy it would be like calling rape "bad" or a murder "not nice." Both are an insult to the victims and the family.

And before you say "pregnancy isn't a crime" stop because that's why it's an analogy. Please stop disregarding what she is saying over a semantics game when you are, I assume, perfectly capable of understanding her point.

 

[blackout]

Having an abortion can be extremely inconvenient.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I see abortion as a socio-medical one nor a religious one.
I have no problem with it any more than I have a problem with life and death.

abortion can be needed for many different reasons, some medical, some social, some economic, some psychological, some judicial. The balance to that need must be found within those criteria, not some religious dogma.

I have never thought life is sacred to the extent that death can not intervene.

It is wrong for animals being killed unnecessarily, but I do not extend that to boiling viable eggs.
There is a massive difference between a child and a foetus.

Potential life is no different to potential death.

 

[Me Myself]

Which religion? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Catholicism.

(I am not catholic)

Do me a favor please and stop calling millions of women murderers for terminating unplanned pregnancy. It's not very endearing. I will bet you I could show you pictures of a human zygote and three other cell clusters and you would not be able to tel me which is the "child" that would be "murdered" if the woman it lived in decided not to continue the pregnancy.

I didn´t call them murderers. I say they are killing the baby, or paying so that their babies are killed. I don´t think name calling is constructive, I am merely pointing at the reality of their actions.

That is not "whoops we forgot the condom" except maybe you could argue in the 26% that did not use and had unintended sex.
That is also primarily impoverished women.
Do you honestly thing that if it were as simple as a 'whoops condom' people would spend the money on an abortion rather than EC?
Taking a BC bill correctly or using a condom correctly is less common than you'd think. IUDs and implants are the only way to guarantee that your BC is functional and correct.


Because knowing the conception date is rare unless you only have sex once a month.

Well, half of them didn´t use contraceptiv methods and of the ones that did use contraceptive methods only a very tiny bit used them correctly (allegedly). That still makes it irresponsable sex, and pregnancies that could be avoided with proper care.

So, it's a person except sometimes it's not? It's a death except sometimes it's ok?
If 70% of pregnancies naturally end in death by the time that the majority of abortions occur, why is abortion somehow worse?

You know how many childs didn´t survive to their 5 years old some time ago?

Murdering them would be ok because many of them wouldn´t have survived anyways, right? how would it be worse anyways?

It's good to know you do everything perfectly and would totally drop your life to raise a child. When you can spend nine months carrying it too then you can intervene.
If you take your pill an hour late, for any reason, you're taking it inconsistently. That puts you at risk for pregnancy for the next week or so. But no, they're being irresponsible and just aborting babies because it's fun and doesn't hurt at all!

Nonsense. I can say murder is wrong anytime I see people condoning it.

Well, they are certainly not taking ths stuff seriously enough. If they are really so worried about how all this can change their lifes, they can take the pill when they ought to or not have sex until they can. If sex is so important to them in that moment they should do it responsabily. If thy didn´t then we got the results. The % you showed clearly demonstrated they don´t take it seriously enough anyways. Half the times they didn´t protect themselves, and the other half was mostly done with incorrect uses for the month.

Let me put it to you this way. if you banned abortion, women would return to what they've done for thousands of years, coathangers, pills, ODing on vitamin C, being beaten in the stomach, because the stigma of an unwed mother, the cost of an unplanned child, the inability to take one's psych medications, etc. are SO horrible that they would risk DEATH to not give birth. Banning abortion will lead to the death of the most vulnerable women - the poor, minorities, the abused, children and teens.

The problem is that this doesn´t talk on the morality of abortion. It only says how many women are capable to react so they can still abort.

You want to pretend it is okay because this woman will beat themselves up if it is not? Well, a rapist could beat himself up in order to rape someone, it would still be wrong.

Now, solve all those other problems - remove the stigma, the cost, make medications safe to take while pregnant, and you still have the issue of the physical health of the mother. So make an exception for that, so that a woman isn't allowed to bleed to death, leaving her other children without a mother for the sake of an embryo that does not have lungs because it is the size of a grape. And do all of this without telling a woman she has to keep her legs shut or she's a tramp while patting the men on the back for their virility. Creating artificial wombs to remove unwanted embryos and gestate them to viability would be a bonus.

You are really saying a lot of things that indeed are moraly wrong and saying they are the same as prohibit abortion and they are not the same. If I was pro "stigma" then I would call this girls murderers. I don´t because it is not benefical to anyone.

The only thing necesary is that they don´t kill. As simple as that. Everyone looking down on them might very well diserve court depending on their ways of action, but that is another thing.

Someone bleeding out or dying cause of the baby are a great minority in this issue too.

Reality is that due to the % you presented it is mostly irresponsable sex.

 

[Me Myself]

This is her point. That the word inconvenient is not the correct word because on a matter of scale it does not even begin to adequately express the truth. If you want a better analogy it would be like calling rape "bad" or a murder "not nice." Both are an insult to the victims and the family.

And before you say "pregnancy isn't a crime" stop because that's why it's an analogy. Please stop disregarding what she is saying over a semantics game when you are, I assume, perfectly capable of understanding her point.

And she is prefectly capable of understanding mine. the word incon vinient is a proper word unless you tell me it is "convinient". It very accurately exppresses the truth of it NOT being convinient. Rape is bad. and I would assume few murders are nice

In any case, it´s simple to understandmy point too. "inconvinient" just was a more abrebiated version of "really really really really HARD!"

 

[Alceste]

(I am not catholic)

I didn´t call them murderers. I say they are killing the baby, or paying so that their babies are killed. I don´t think name calling is constructive, I am merely pointing at the reality of their actions.

OK, so which of these photographs is of a "baby"?

I'm quite sure that what you're calling "reality" is in fact your own personal opinion, backed by nothing but sentimentality.

 

[Drolefille]

So what I'm getting is that abortions are wrong and women should keep their legs shut rather than being so immoral and that it's OK to dismiss arguments over a semantic game.

 

[Alceste]

So what I'm getting is that abortions are wrong and women should keep their legs shut rather than being so immoral and that it's OK to dismiss arguments over a semantic game.

That's what it sounds like to me. Makes it all the more outrageous that it is a health issue he, personally, will never have to deal with except as a free-wheeling spectator.

 

[Me Myself]

OK, so which of these photographs is of a "baby"?

I'm quite sure that what you're calling "reality" is in fact your own personal opinion, backed by nothing but sentimentality.

This one:

But everyone knows if you don´t look what you are you better be dead, right?

So what I'm getting is that abortions are wrong

Yes, murder is not cool! ^0^

women should keep their legs shut rather than being so immoral

Women are free to enjoy fully their sexuality. Like most things in life, they gotta do it responsably though, you know, unlike the bast majority of the % you showed me that did abortions.

and that it's OK to dismiss arguments over a semantic game.

On contrair, when I first talked to her about the actual argument she said she had no idea what I was talking about and that it was plainly semantic.

That´s why I told her if she wanted to discuss this plainly semantic issue in the literature part of the forum

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, murder is not cool! ^0^

It's not murder, because murder must be illegal, and, involve a person.