Abortion

[SomeRandom]

My intention wasn't to blur lines nor was I being dishonest. My intent was to demonstrate that wherever a line is unclear, there is still a safe and unsafe side. A man who forces a woman to touch him sexually when he says no may not say in his defense, "But I didn't rape her!"

If we're unsure about a fetus, let it live. Does that sound like the safe side of the line to you as it does to me? Do I have the safe side of the line marked incorrectly?

I think your intentions are indeed honest, but that doesn't change the result of what you said.

Birth ain't exactly the safest option all the time. Preeclampsia, postpartum depression, added complication to mothers with existing medical/mental health issues and that's just from the top of my head. So you tell me. Are we really discussing the safe option? Or are you just more interested in keeping the fetus around so that they reach the stage of actual viability?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But if they're explicable by scientific laws, they're not miracles! That's the definition of the term! It also doesn't stop people from making the most absurd claims about miracles, that the tornado killed 47 people, but one person survived with only a broken neck. It's a MIRACLE!

It really doesn't matter if someone is pro-choice or pro-life, that decision was made in the early 1970s, like it or not. It is never going to go away, like it or not. If you don't like abortion, by all means, don't have an abortion. That's the limit of your control.

1. The tornado example, as I've stated, may be divine providence but is not a miracle. I agree.

2. A miracle is inexplicable by the action of scientific laws without any intervening agency. The arc at which I throw a baseball into the air is totally explicable by scientific laws but I choose to throw a baseball. If you saw a baseball take off by itself--not seeing an agency of causation--you would perhaps feel there was a naturalistic causation or that an invisible agency intervened.

3. The limit of my control is enhanced by working with individuals in the gospel, working with a center to help people make informed abortion decisions, and the prayerful opportunity for the Supreme Court (as least where I live) to overturn Roe v. Wade--something I would consider providential.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Curious indeed, sir!

Before working for a crisis center I worked for a birth defects foundation. Knowing pro life people and their giving habits, I would say this is a false idea.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think your intentions are indeed honest, but that doesn't change the result of what you said.

Birth ain't exactly the safest option all the time. Preeclampsia, postpartum depression, added complication to mothers with existing medical/mental health issues and that's just from the top of my head. So you tell me. Are we really discussing the safe option? Or are you just more interested in keeping the fetus around so that they reach the stage of actual viability?

I'm less interested in preventing the abortion than in the health and welfare of the mother. I believe life of the mother is a credible abortion option. I've already said I have a sister-in-law who had a safe, medical abortion in the hospital for just that reason.

However, when a depressed mother kills her children, she gets jail time or mental healthcare or both. Nor should I kill my spouse if she makes me feel sad or depressed.

 

[leibowde84]

That sure is condescending. I suggest that your argument doesn't hold water, which is why you won't take the time to articulate it.

The question of law is one of right or wrong. When abortion was legal, it wasn't settled, as it was then changed (made legal). Ergo, the fact that it is legal doesn't make it settled. And it continues to change.

And this is the the very problem with depending on man's definition of right and wrong. With man, there are no absolutes.

The law is not based on right and wrong. It's based on societal impact.

 

[Cephus]

1. The tornado example, as I've stated, may be divine providence but is not a miracle. I agree.

The tornado example is wholly natural with absolutely no supernatural component. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.

2. A miracle is inexplicable by the action of scientific laws without any intervening agency. The arc at which I throw a baseball into the air is totally explicable by scientific laws but I choose to throw a baseball. If you saw a baseball take off by itself--not seeing an agency of causation--you would perhaps feel there was a naturalistic causation or that an invisible agency intervened.

That's vague to the point of being worthless. Yes, if I saw a baseball just fly off by itself without being acted upon by any force, then I'd certainly go looking for an explanation because what I saw is not natural, at least based on our current understanding of nature. But that doesn't mean that you can declare it to be a supernatural event because you've never proven that there is any such thing as the supernatural.

3. The limit of my control is enhanced by working with individuals in the gospel, working with a center to help people make informed abortion decisions, and the prayerful opportunity for the Supreme Court (as least where I live) to overturn Roe v. Wade--something I would consider providential.

So you're indoctrinated and you can join forces with other indoctrinated people to push your views through the force of law on others. Okay. That still doesn't prove that your views are factually correct. Heck, people who believe in unicorns could petition the Supreme Court to declare that medical science is outlawed because only a touch from a magical unicorn horn can bring healing. That doesn't make it so. I only care about what's so in objective reality. And thinking that the SC is going to overturn RvW is just not going to happen. The fundamental principles surrounding that ruling have a massive impact on many of the important rulings they've made in the past 50 years. You'll have to overturn many of the cornerstones of modern legal thought, most especially privacy rights, and I don't think you want anything to do with that. Actions have consequences, after all. No state can possibly overturn abortion rights, it is a national right whether they like it or not. You're not fighting a losing fight, you're fighting one that you lost more than 50 years ago and cannot possibly win. But if it makes you feel better to close your eyes and fold your hands and talk to yourself about it, by all means, be my guest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The law is not based on right and wrong. It's based on societal impact.

Logically, my barrister friend, if your statement is true, we would expect to find over time many laws that are wrong and many that are right. Please list the many laws that are wrong here on this thread. I'll start the list:

* gerrymandering laws

 

[leibowde84]

Logically, my barrister friend, if your statement is true, we would expect to find over time many laws that are wrong and many that are right. Please list the many laws that are wrong here on this thread. I'll start the list:

* gerrymandering laws

Can you define "wrong" first? What makes something wrong?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The tornado example is wholly natural with absolutely no supernatural component. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.

Which tornado are you thinking of? All tornadoes? How did you come to the place in your thinking where you know this of all tornadoes, ever? They leave some funky wakes behind them at times.

That's vague to the point of being worthless. Yes, if I saw a baseball just fly off by itself without being acted upon by any force, then I'd certainly go looking for an explanation because what I saw is not natural, at least based on our current understanding of nature. But that doesn't mean that you can declare it to be a supernatural event because you've never proven that there is any such thing as the supernatural.

Your biases are showing. I didn't say it was a supernatural event. I said that logically, one would have to consider an anomaly in science or that is was a supernatural event. Do you disagree? Is there a natural law that makes baseballs move without a causation agent?

So you're indoctrinated and you can join forces with other indoctrinated people to push your views through the force of law on others. Okay. That still doesn't prove that your views are factually correct. Heck, people who believe in unicorns could petition the Supreme Court to declare that medical science is outlawed because only a touch from a magical unicorn horn can bring healing. That doesn't make it so. I only care about what's so in objective reality. And thinking that the SC is going to overturn RvW is just not going to happen. The fundamental principles surrounding that ruling have a massive impact on many of the important rulings they've made in the past 50 years. You'll have to overturn many of the cornerstones of modern legal thought, most especially privacy rights, and I don't think you want anything to do with that. Actions have consequences, after all. No state can possibly overturn abortion rights, it is a national right whether they like it or not. You're not fighting a losing fight, you're fighting one that you lost more than 50 years ago and cannot possibly win. But if it makes you feel better to close your eyes and fold your hands and talk to yourself about it, by all means, be my guest.

Well, I guess it would take a miracle to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'd better pray some more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you define "wrong" first? What makes something wrong?

Not a bad attempt, but I'm afraid yours was the statement that "laws are not based on right and wrong". Here are ten laws I think make sense:

Worship Jehovah
Don't pursue other gods
Don't blaspheme
Honor Shabbat to God
Honor your parents
Don't steal
Don't bear false witness
Don't commit adultery
Don't commit murder
Don't covet

Do these ten fall to arbitrary lines of right and wrong to you? If not, would you please define right and wrong somehow that makes sense? Because if you insist laws are not based on moral absolutes but are rather contrivances of society, you will still need to explain how society keeps making both right and wrong laws.

 

[leibowde84]

Not a bad attempt, but I'm afraid yours was the statement that "laws are not based on right and wrong". Here are ten laws I think make sense:

Worship Jehovah
Don't pursue other gods
Don't blaspheme
Honor Shabbat to God
Honor your parents
Don't steal
Don't bear false witness
Don't commit adultery
Don't commit murder
Don't covet

Do these ten fall to arbitrary lines of right and wrong to you? If not, would you please define right and wrong somehow that makes sense? Because if you insist laws are not based on moral absolutes but are rather contrivances of society, you will still need to explain how society keeps making both right and wrong laws.

LOL. The reason why I asked was because YOU brought it back into the conversation. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, which is why I asked you to define "wrong" after YOU asked ME to provide "laws that were wrong".

Logically, my barrister friend, if your statement is true, we would expect to find over time many laws that are wrong and many that are right. Please list the many laws that are WRONG here on this thread. I'll start the list:

* gerrymandering laws

So, again, since YOU asked me to provide laws that are "wrong", can you define that term for me?

 

[JoStories]

The cases mentioned are not the "norm." I can't imagine the betrayal and violation of being raped and impregnated by a family member. It certainly explains the militancy and bitterness in the posts. It also supports my claim that people seek only to gratify themselves, without any concern for the well being of others.

Militancy? Bitterness? How in the world was my being raped and impregnated by my grandfather and then the resultant abortion, in a time when one was hard pressed to find someone who would do the abortion, how is that seeking to gratify myself? And how would it have been to have a child with that man still in the home and still raping me?? Are you really serious here?

 

[JoStories]

Thank you for your mostly respectful reply.

Just because you infer it does not mean I implied it. My argument is based on cause and effect. I do not ignore the man's role; he is the only one of the two who can walk away with no physical consequence, unless she has a vindictive father with a shotgun.

I understand wanting sex for pleasure. However, I am acutely aware that I can't be pregnant. Aside from STD or emotional backlash, I have no consequences to face.

How about the woman? She wonders whether the birth control worked. She discovers she's pregnant, then realizes her entire life will change whether she keeps the baby or not. If she aborts her baby, she has a lower probability of carrying a baby to delivery when she decides to have children.

I state for clarification: if a woman knows there is a risk of pregnancy, why would she have sex? The same reason a man will love her and leave her. It's all about selfish gratification.

So for you, the only reason for a woman to have sex is to procreate? Is that it? What about wanting gratification from one's partner? Why does sex just have to be about making more children, children the earth is hard pressed to be able to bear much more?

 

[leibowde84]

So for you, the only reason for a woman to have sex is to procreate? Is that it? What about wanting gratification from one's partner? Why does sex just have to be about making more children, children the earth is hard pressed to be able to bear much more?

Sing it, sister.

 

[Cephus]

Which tornado are you thinking of? All tornadoes? How did you come to the place in your thinking where you know this of all tornadoes, ever? They leave some funky wakes behind them at times.

Certainly any that I'm aware of. If you're aware of one that is different, then the burden of proof rests on you.

Your biases are showing. I didn't say it was a supernatural event. I said that logically, one would have to consider an anomaly in science or that is was a supernatural event. Do you disagree? Is there a natural law that makes baseballs move without a causation agent?

But it isn't a miracle if it isn't a supernatural event. An anomalous natural event is still a natural event.

Well, I guess it would take a miracle to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'd better pray some more.

You're free to talk to yourself all you want. It won't change anything.

 

[JoStories]

Sorry, this is a follow-the money-issue. Nobody wants to kill the cash cow. Doctors are junior politicians, loathe to upset the apple cart for fear of calling the attention of the AMA. They toe the line, or they suffer.

You can argue my point (I would, given my lack of citations), but before you get too comfortable, you might look beyond what a medical establishment says, and go to the independent research.

One experience with your father does not make you an expert in this. I am an advanced practice nurse. Abortion can have risks but there are more risks with pregnancy and in particular, those that are caused by rape. No one wants to have an abortion without knowing there's consequences, both physical and psychological. I am not sure what research you think one should look into here.

 

[JoStories]

Here's what you are doing: assuming that their statistical method is valid. As a disproportionate number of abortions are performed in inner city neighborhoods, I would challenge your assumption that follow-up was effective. In other words, if the abortion recipient didn't report a problem, and there was ineffective follow-up, then the statistics will be uniformly low.

I stand by my initial claim: that abortion is selfish. I will add that sex is selfish. I have four children, and had a vasectomy, so I can engage in sex with my wife to my heart's content, and we don't have to consider ending a life just because we don't want more kids.

If my vasectomy manages to undo itself, and my wife ends up pregnant, we will keep the baby, because it is morally wrong to kill it.

That's fine...for you. But to imagine that sex is selfish is just incomprehensible to me. Sex is an extension of love. Its a physical way to show your partner how beautiful or whatever they are and share in that experience. As for being morally wrong to abort a fetus, that is your opinion and one I don't share.

 

[JoStories]

Here's my summary: people have despised me for my posts, I have disdained them for their selfishness, we have insulted each other, and generally acted in pride and arrogance on both sides of a contentious issue. I again assert that mankind is broken, in these and many other ways.

Sir, to this point, I have been respectful of you and your opinions. I differ in this and do not believe what you do and think it really has no bearing on what a woman may or may not want regarding an abortion. I fail to see where mankind, your words, is broken. I am Buddhist and while I sometimes get frustrated with others here, I rarely am openly disrespectful. This statement of your's is a blanket one and not true at all. I have many friends on this forum, some atheist, some Christian and some other faiths. I realize you are new here and some topics really are hot button ones but I would suggest you give this forum or this topic a bit more time and try to see other's POV. You don't have to agree but a tad of compassion and caring goes a very long way. And after all, is that not what Christ taught?

 

[JoStories]

Sing it, sister.

Kiss kiss darling. you are the best.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm less interested in preventing the abortion than in the health and welfare of the mother. I believe life of the mother is a credible abortion option. I've already said I have a sister-in-law who had a safe, medical abortion in the hospital for just that reason.

However, when a depressed mother kills her children, she gets jail time or mental healthcare or both. Nor should I kill my spouse if she makes me feel sad or depressed.

Who said anything about killing babies when depressed? I said postpartum depression is an issue.
And again you are specifically referring to post birth killings. We don't jail someone for involuntary manslaughter if they have a miscarriage! Or at least we should never do so. If someone chooses not to have an abortion but endangers the fetus through drugs and alcohol we intervene. Because the choice made by the mother not to have a safe abortion is implicit in such a scenario.
There's many more nuances in this abortion debate than just an abortion, ya know?