Planned Parenthood and Abortion

[Sunstone]

Yes, I do believe that any abortion goes against my principles of right conduct.

If I understand you correctly, Mister Emu, you would not choose an abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life was in peril. May I ask whether you would, if you were in a position to do so, impose your understanding of the ethics of abortion on everyone else? IF you could, would you ban all abortions?

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes of course, if you had the chance would you have stopped the holocaust? If you had the chance would you have stopped the Native American massacres? If you had the chance would you have stopped the 9/11 attacks? The list goes on, I would stop all of these.

Just so you don't think I don't care about adult female life, I would gladly give my own up to stop these killings(Abortions).

 

[linwood]

The murder of a living human life, to faster complete an education or to make sure I get a job is morally right?

I didn`t say it was right or wrong just that it empowered women and thats how it works.

I`m not taking the pro-choice stance here remember?
I`m the guy who doesn`t know what to think about this topic

If you are having sexual intercourse and do not want a child than you should use contraception and recognize the fact that you may still get pregnant or stop and be abstinate.

I agree but it doesn`t change the fact that a man doesn`t have to stop having sex and it can have little or no affect on his life if a woman does become pregnant.
That doesn`t seem fair either.

 

[Mister Emu]

I didn`t say it was right or wrong just that it empowered women and thats how it works.

I`m not taking the pro-choice stance here remember?
I`m the guy who doesn`t know what to think about this topic

Ok, I thought you were saying that was ok.

I agree but it doesn`t change the fact that a man doesn`t have to stop having sex and it can have little or no affect on his life if a woman does become pregnant.
That doesn`t seem fair either.

If a man is not affected by his becoming a potential parent he is not a real man, especally if he runs away from it. Both parents should be involved in everything.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes of course, if you had the chance would you have stopped the holocaust? If you had the chance would you have stopped the Native American massacres? If you had the chance would you have stopped the 9/11 attacks? The list goes on, I would stop all of these.

Just so you don't think I don't care about adult female life, I would gladly give my own up to stop these killings(Abortions).

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue, Mister Emu. I won't try to talk you out of your position. I merely wanted to clarify it. To my way of thinking, it is just as unacceptable to prohibit abortion in cases of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is in peril as it is to your way of thinking unacceptable to allow abortions in those instances. I see abortion as the lesser evil and you see it as the greater. Besides which, I believe the choice should be up to the woman. Perhaps on some other issue we will find ourselves in agreement, but not on this one.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm gonna go with Sunstone on this one. I respect pretty much everyone here, and, at least in my case, continuing in a debate as seemingly fruitless as this one is just inviting bad karma and hatred to spread where it wouldn't otherwise. I will continue supporting caring and kind debate techniques (on both sides) from 'the sidelines.'

*hugs to everyone

 

[Mister Emu]

Just trying to understand, but for those of you who believe the mother's life is more important, why do you beleive so?

 

[civilcynic]

I'm gonna go with Sunstone on this one. I respect pretty much everyone here, and, at least in my case, continuing in a debate as seemingly fruitless as this one is just inviting bad karma and hatred to spread where it wouldn't otherwise. I will continue supporting caring and kind debate techniques (on both sides) from 'the sidelines.'

*hugs to everyone

Well said, Feathersinhair. Unfortunately, I believe this is one of those issues that will not be resolved for a long, long time...if ever.

The only thing I would like to add is that I have met several women who have had abortions and, within that limited scope of my experience, I have never encountered one that made the decision lightly...it was done only after alot of soul searching. These women have expressed regret in having to make that decision but not one expressed regret on having done so.

Its just too bad that both sides spend more time arguing with each other and trying either to maintain abortion rights or make abortion illegal than working together to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Pah]

Just trying to understand, but for those of you who believe the mother's life is more important, why do you beleive so?

It's really very simple. The woman is a known quanity - the fetus is only prospective.

-pah-

 

[Paraprakrti]

It's really very simple. The woman is a known quanity - the fetus is only prospective.

-pah-

Yes, the fetus is only prospective, even before conception. So the solution to the problem is to not engage in an act that will manifest that prospective into the first physical stages. This is the simple and obvious answer. Although people seem to have a difficult time accepting that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Then we get into contraception. Even then it is not 100%. So the risk must be taken into consideration. The only thing I am preaching is responsibility. Please explain to me how this is unreasonable.

 

[civilcynic]

Yes, the fetus is only prospective, even before conception. So the solution to the problem is to not engage in an act that will manifest that prospective into the first physical stages. This is the simple and obvious answer. Although people seem to have a difficult time accepting that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Then we get into contraception. Even then it is not 100%. So the risk must be taken into consideration. The only thing I am preaching is responsibility. Please explain to me how this is unreasonable.

Common Scenario: A woman and her husband do not want anymore children, what options are you suggesting they pursue?

Condoms, the diaphragm, etc; are known to fail (even if the failure rate can very low)thus using these methods would be irresponsible if one truly does not want or cannot have anymore children.

I suppose the couple could practice complete abstinence which is 100% guaranteed to be effective and therefore a responsible approach. Is it realistic for a married couple to become celibate after they have fininshed having children? Of course another responsible approach is sterilization of one or the other one where one faces risks inherent whenever surgery is done.

Which method..complete abstinence or sterilization would you and your spouse use or plan to use to be responsible? If sterilization is your choice..which surgery is less risky and which of you would have it done?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Common Scenario: A woman and her husband do not want anymore children, what options are you suggesting they pursue?

Condoms, the diaphragm, etc; are known to fail (even if the failure rate can very low)thus using these methods would be irresponsible if one truly does not want or cannot have anymore children.

I suppose the couple could practice complete abstinence which is 100% guaranteed to be effective and therefore a responsible approach. Is it realistic for a married couple to become celibate after they have fininshed having children? Of course another responsible approach is sterilization of one or the other one where one faces risks inherent whenever surgery is done.

Which method..complete abstinence or sterilization would you and your spouse use or plan to use to be responsible? If sterilization is your choice..which surgery is less risky and which of you would have it done?

Abstinence is as real as you want to make it.
Nevertheless, I understand that most married couples will engage in sex regardless. In that case they should take responsibility for the outcome. Contraception and sterilization are merely methods to try and have the pleasure while escaping the responsibility that typically results. I personally do not believe in them, but thats just me. I could get further into this but then I would be going off topic about unnecessary indulgence in sense gratification. The topic is abortion. If you are married and don't want kids you can either be abstinent (best choice), or you can try one of the other two and risk either the possibility of having a child or the possibility of a bad operation. Abortion should only be considered a choice when the choice of abstinence has been infringed upon, aka: rape.
Personally, I feel that even in the case of rape it is better to keep the child. Although the woman did not ask to be raped, the circumstance has permitted for what will be a new life forming within her. Sometimes we cannot control our circumstances. Just like if you found someone stuck under their vehicle on the side of a cliff, yelling for help. You did not ask for those circumstances, but it would be a decent thing to help them nevertheless. That analogy is not perfect, but that is just my personal opinion on the circumstance of rape.

 

[Pah]

Yes, the fetus is only prospective, even before conception. So the solution to the problem is to not engage in an act that will manifest that prospective into the first physical stages. This is the simple and obvious answer. Although people seem to have a difficult time accepting that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Then we get into contraception. Even then it is not 100%. So the risk must be taken into consideration. The only thing I am preaching is responsibility. Please explain to me how this is unreasonable.

There is no need to forego the pleasure of sex based on possibility. We know that the prime purpose of sex is pleasure and a cementing of the relationship structure. The law allows the "last resort" of abortion and it is the woman's choice - not your's - not some church - the woman's. The law defines the relationship between the the woman and the state (-not you - not some church). The state has no justifiable interest in the fetus until it acheives viability. It is the woman's choice - it is her's to decide.

-pah-

 

[johnnys4life]

Just because you cannot see the child until it is born, does not mean it is not a human being. I have a real problem with your logic there.

 

[Pah]

Just because you cannot see the child until it is born, does not mean it is not a human being. I have a real problem with your logic there.

Sight is not my criteria. Viability is.

I sent you a PM confirming (with exceptions for reference format) the debate you said you would do. It appears you have not read it yet.

-pah-

 

[johnnys4life]

Also, are you unaware that is legal to kill children who are "viable"?
By law, the abortion doctor has the right to decide whether the child is viable or not. Abortion is legal up until the very day of birth. Read Roe V. Wade. We cannot allow abortion for any reason simply because that's what got us into this mess to begin with. The pro-abortive movement found a loophole. Before it was legal to have an abortion only in cases where it the mother's health was thought to be jeopardized. Roe v. Wade changed the law to where the mother's health was defined as her physical, emotional, or social health. There were no clear cut definitions as to what constituted a threat to her emotional or social health, so, boom, abortion on-demand became legal.
Yes the state, me, and anyone else who has a conscience has the right to tell a woman that she ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to kill her child, in or out of the womb. Conception from rape is extremely rare, even more rare than from a one-night stand, because female orgasm is rarely experienced during rape, and the contractions from orgasm help the cervix to allow sperm to pass into the uterus. However, if a person does become pregnant from rape, that does not make her child any less of a person. Were that true, why not wait until the child was born, and strangle it herself? It is exactly the same thing, and maybe even a little less cruel than abortion when you consider the methods which cut the child repeatedly before death or tear it limb from limb in most cases, but can also include poisoning by an injection into the child's blood stream of a toxic saline solution, which causes severe burns to the skin and internal organs.

It is a medical fact that 2nd and 3rd term abortions cause intense pain to the child, and yet they are legal. Why should a woman's choice include giving her child an excrutiating death? Planned Parenthood insists that abortion be legal for as late in a pregnancy as they consider neccesary. Thier definition of necessary is for ANY reason, including "not having enough money soon enough for an early abortion" and if you ever hear otherwise, I can prove that.

 

[johnnys4life]

Sickeningly, Planned Parenthood rejoices over abortion. In the book their president is currently writing, "Behind Every Choice There Is a Story" she includes letters from women who had abortion for every idiotic reason imaginable. Including, "I wanted to become a lawyer", and "It just wasn't the right time in my life to be a mother." But understand this, that child has a being, has a DNA structure, has it's own bloodstream that is seperate from it's mother's.

Abortion does not make you not a mother, it simply makes you the mother of a dead child.

 

[johnnys4life]

Want more proof that they don't just see abortion as "a necessary evil"? Ever heard of the "I Had An Abortion" t-shirt they came out with recently?

That's right. They encourage naive women who have no idea what they actually just did, and have never seen their dead child nor pictures of anyone else's that was murdered by abortion, to brag about their act of violence in hopes that everyone else will rejoice in the act as well and continue to fund thier multi-million dollar killing empire.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*repeats to self* I said I'm not going to argue any more, and that's what why I won't continue... I said I'm not going to argue any more, and that's why I won't continue... Please, someone, encourage me not to argue any more, because I really, really want to!

 

[Paraprakrti]

We know that the prime purpose of sex is pleasure and a cementing of the relationship structure.

-pah-

"We" do not know this to be a fact.

This is like saying that performing heart surgery has the prime purpose of giving the surgeon pleasure. Although the surgeon most likely feels pleasure that he/she has helped another, he/she knows that the prime purpose of the act was to keep someone alive. Also, one can say that by sustaining life the surgeon has helped another to continue in their capacity to experience pleasure. Nevertheless, that prospect of the patient is secondary to the immediate fact that the heart surgery operation is for saving a life.

The prime purpose of sex is procreation. Pleasure is an added bonus.

And if you want to make it more convenient for your pleasure: sex has both the added bonus of sensual pleasure as well as the pleasure of raising a child.