Planned Parenthood and Abortion

[Sunstone]

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

I've noticed over the years that people who are anti-abortion tend to think the prime purpose of sex is procreation. That said, I've wondered how they know what the purpose of sex is? Is the purpose of sex set in concrete. And if so, who decides what the purpose is? For it seems to me that the purpose of sex is what we (humans) decide the purpose of sex is. And the purpose we have for it can vary from time to time, from person to person, and so forth.

 

[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-

 

[Melody]

Yea, horrible. Horribly photoshopped.
The only reason these pictures are "awful" is because they've been manipulated to serve propoganda purposes.

I worked in a hospital in Denver that did a booming business in abortion. As a medical transcriptionist, I had to type up the nauseating descriptions of the abortion process and the aborted child. No, the pictures aren't "photoshopped" but I'm sure it makes you feel so much better thinking they can't possibly be real.

I finally had to quit my job because I started becoming physically ill whenever I had to type up a surgical report that discussed how the child came out in pieces.....or the "viable" infant was left to die in the metal pan.

Abortion is ugly and it's violent and there is an innocent victim...and I'm talking about the child.

I want to thank all of you, both prolife and pro-choice. When I started reading these boards I had no doubts that abortion was wrong but I had some concern as to what right I had to push my view off onto others. I don't believe you can fence sit on this issue but was having trouble determining what my responsibility as a human being was. No longer.

In most cases, the adult has the choice of whether or not to get pregnant. If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex. If you choose to have sex, then live with the idea that you may become pregnant and deal with it like a responsible adult. The argument that most swayed me for prochoice was the one about women who were raped or teens who were the victims of incest. It no longer sways me. Bad things happen in life but murdering an innocent child won't make the bad things better.

My husband's first wife, and the mother of our two older boys, discovered she had breast cancer after she found out she was 8 weeks pregnant. The doctors told her that she had to abort in order to get chemotherapy immediately. She chose the life of her son instead. They took Bryan out 6 weeks early, as soon as his lungs developed, so she could start chemo but it was too late. It had already metastasized to her brain and spine. This courageous woman...and my idea of a hero....was not particularly religious but valued the life of that infant above her own. She went down fighting, trying every possible cure she could find so she obviously wanted to live.

I've decided that I don't want to have to stand in front of God on judgment day and explain how I could possibly be confused as to whether this innocent life had a right to life....because I don't think I could come up with even one plausible argument.

 

[Melody]

There are wide differences among various people as what constitutes a human being and what the morality is of ending that life.

In that case, then I think the state has already determined that a "fetus" is a child since they have prosecuted people who were driving under the influence, hit a vehicle containing a pregnant woman and the "fetus" ultimately died. If it's not a human being yet, how can anyone be tried for murder?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Note that a woman who has an abortion is never shown her dead child. If she were, the rate of women using Planned Parenthood and other abortion industries as birth control would seriously decline, and there would be a lot more truth in the world, and a lot more women who have serious guilt problems, and RIGHTLY SO!

Do you honestly think these women DON't feel guilt over this decision? Granted there are some who don't seem to - I knew one in particular who seemed to use it as a form of after the event contraceptive. It didn't seem to worry her at the time, but who am I to assume now - 10 years later - that she isn't wracked with guilt over it?
I also knew someone else who was absolutely ruined by the experience for years after the event. She eventually moved past it, but it's not like she just forgot all about it...eventually people work through their grief.
It's very easy for you to stand in a place of judgement and say,'You women should feel sick with yourselves for what you've done.', but you don't have to live with the guilt every day as they have to, and you don't have to live with the fact that there's always a child you'll never have and it's through a decision you felt you had to make.
There are plenty of women out there with serious guilt problems, they don't need you telling them they don't feel badly enough, because quite frankly you have no idea how they actually feel.

 

[Pah]

In that case, then I think the state has already determined that a "fetus" is a child since they have prosecuted people who were driving under the influence, hit a vehicle containing a pregnant woman and the "fetus" ultimately died. If it's not a human being yet, how can anyone be tried for murder?

A child is a post-partum fetus. The laws, I believe, specify fetus - viiable or not.

Because the woman did not give consent.

-pah-

 

[Melody]

Because the woman did not give consent.

-pah-

It's not considered a person and has no rights so the mother can dispose of it, but it's considered a person with rights if a drunk driver kills it? It is illogical to make the fetus a non-person for the purpose of abortion but a person for anyone but the mother killing it.

 

[Pah]

Also, are you unaware that is legal to kill children who are "viable"?

No, it is legal to kill a fetus

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.

If you really read Roe v Wade, you would know that it does not speak of viability as the rule but trimester which may or may not co-incide with viability. It does not matter what determination is found about viability.

We cannot allow abortion for any reason simply because that's what got us into this mess to begin with.

You do not have the choice to allow anything except what happens in your own body. Your friends can't - your paster can't - church organizations can't - Congress can't - the President can't. And none of these can tell a woman she can't

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.

It's still the health of the woman and "demand" has nothing to do with it in the third trimester.

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.

Yes, you have that right as long as you do not interfer with her right.

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.

You should check your data vis-a-vis rape and "one-night stands" and come back to us so we don't dismiss this as just a bold ascertion. And I would like to see that data that confirms that an organism is required to get pregnant. I think you are combining the bilogical fact of assitance by the cervix with bad data.

However, if a person does become pregnant from rape, that does not make her child any less of a person.

It is not a child until delivered it reamins a fetus until that happens.

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.

No it's not the same thing. A child can be murdered, a fetus can not.

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?

I understand that sedatives are used. Is that not true?

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.

Who is they? The only "they" is the women carrying the fetus. "They" could also mean the Supreme Court but Planned Parenthood has no more standing in Court than you do in regard to other women.

-pah-

 

[linwood]

In that case, then I think the state has already determined that a "fetus" is a child since they have prosecuted people who were driving under the influence, hit a vehicle containing a pregnant woman and the "fetus" ultimately died. If it's not a human being yet, how can anyone be tried for murder?

This is a great point.
Someone please explain to me why the Peterson trial in Cali has him up for two counts?
One for his wife and the other for his unborn son?

This would seem to be an extremely inconsistent definition of a fetus.

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?

Have you seen the semi trailers they`re driving around towns with the 20 ft x 40 ft photos of aborted fetus` printed on them.
Thats classy.

because female orgasm is rarely experienced during rape, and the contractions from orgasm help the cervix to allow sperm to pass into the uterus.

You`re kidding ..right?

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 isn`t a viable choice for the vast majority of people so thats out.
What are the comparative risks between getting your tubes tied and abortion?
they are both surgical procedures aren`t they both a risk?

johnnys4life,

Could I give you a bit of unsolicited but friendly advice?

I understand that you are passionate about this cause and I understand why, it`s a cause worthy of passion.
However you have got to keep many of your personal beliefs out of your arguments.
You will never change the minds of the hardcore died in the wool liberals on this topic no matter how "right" you may be.

The people you want to bring to your way of thinking are people like me, the fence sitters the right leaning liberals, the left leaning conservatives who just don`t quite know how to solve this moral dilemma.

The moment you speak out against democrats you speak out against the liberal mind in many ways.
The people you want to reach have liberal values to some extent so these people stop listening to you the moment you disregard their ideology with one callous statement.

The other part of your argument is the lack of an alternative.
You speak out against the evils of both abortion AND contraception.
To people like me abstinence just isn`t an alternative and they won`t entertain the thought for even a split second.
You MUST offer an alternative because the people you have to reach will not stop having sex nor will they submit to having 15-20 children in their lifetime.
THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT EITHER OPTION YOU LEAVE OPEN..EVER so you have lost them before they`ve even heard your argument.
Which isn`t a bad argument, it`s a shame they`ll never hear it.

Your argument against contraception is that it provides money to abortionists but if abortion were illegal it would no longer do this so it`s a moot point in your ultimate objective.

You can`t deny contraception AND abortion because the only other choice isn`t a choice at all .
You`re tellling them they can either become celibate or have 15 kids.
Niether choice is acceptable they will always cry for abortion and contraception.

The last thing ...you come across as a right wing neo-con fundamentalist.
No one with even a gram of liberalism in his heart will ever give you a fair hearing.
I am an atheist I believe in a secular society the vast majority of Americans are non-religious(meaning they don`t practice) and also believe in a secular society they like I will never accept any law based on Christian doctrine.

The moment any law based exclusively on Christian doctrine is passed in this country I will become an anarchist so fast it`ll make your head spin.

Leave religion and politics out of your argument and you will have magically destroyed two of the three stumbling blocks to hearing your argument.

the third block is the womans right to her own body.

Argue with science and secular morals and you have an excellent shot at winning this debate.

it is more than enough.

 

[Pah]

It's not considered a person and has no rights so the mother can dispose of it, but it's considered a person with rights if a drunk driver kills it? It is illogical to make the fetus a non-person for the purpose of abortion but a person for anyone but the mother killing it.

I don't believe a fetus is considered a person until viability. I don't know what the various laws say about the killing of a fetus proir to the third trimester and without the mother's consent but I bet that there has not been an appeal brought. It would take a conviction under the law and the constitutional issue raised.

-pah-

 

[Paraprakrti]

I've noticed over the years that people who are anti-abortion tend to think the prime purpose of sex is procreation. That said, I've wondered how they know what the purpose of sex is? Is the purpose of sex set in concrete. And if so, who decides what the purpose is? For it seems to me that the purpose of sex is what we (humans) decide the purpose of sex is. And the purpose we have for it can vary from time to time, from person to person, and so forth.

What is the purpose for heart surgery? Is it so the surgeon can get paid? Is it so he/she can feel good about him/herself? Perhaps... but what is the primary purpose? Or at least, what should be the primary purpose? I am sure we could each decide different things. But just try using common sense here. Sex happens to be the natural activity that leads to child birth. If we are to weigh all the factors involved in the sexual act; physical pleasure, emotional pleasure, fertilization; then we should be able to conclude which of these has the most impact on life and consider that thing the primary purpose. Let us try to be a little less selfish. It boggles my mind that we even have to have this discussion. The purpose for sex is crystal clear.

 

[Pah]

...But just try using common sense here. Sex happens to be the natural activity that leads to child birth. If we are to weigh all the factors involved in the sexual act; physical pleasure, emotional pleasure, fertilization; then we should be able to conclude which of these has the most impact on life and consider that thing the primary purpose. Let us try to be a little less selfish. It boggles my mind that we even have to have this discussion. The purpose for sex is crystal clear.

If procreation were the primary purpose of sex, than each time of intercourse would produce a pregnancy. The fact is, pregnancy is only possible 5 or so days a month and only those months from puberty to menopause. Contrary to the prohibitions in the Bible, sex is available throughout the month, before and after the "fertile" years. That leaves a whole lot of time for a "secondary" or "tertuary" function wouldn't you say? Why just the availability of sex after menopause is probably more than the time when conception is possible. Seems like a poor design if procreation is the sole and most important goal. Would God have been a poor designer or have you misconstrued what God's intentions were? God certainly showed us with the Big Horn Sheep - the female sheep only mate when they are fecund, but then again, the males mate all the time. Since mounting for procreation is only once a year for a short period of time it too seems minor in the scheme of things when those males can enjoy themselves all year round.

In some of God's creation, some creatures don't even have sex - they reproduce asexually. I guess it's becoming less and less clear.

-pah-

 

[civilcynic]

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.

Paraprakrti, although I certainly don't agree with you...I can at least see consistency in your viewpoint except for the rape scenario.

In my eyes, if one is against abortion because they view it as taking a life then there can be no exceptions such as in the case of rape.

On the other hand, I think your views clearly demonstrate the problem with the abortion issue. It is not a black and white, clearly defined issue without any easy answers and therein lies the problem with legislation of such an issue.

Your posts indicate that you oppose abortion in most instances except for rape and perhaps (my assumption...I don't recall if you mentioned this exception) in case of the life of the mother. Others would say that abortion should never be allowed regardless of the circumstances.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that using birth control pills, etc; are okay but clinical abortions are wrong. Then there are those who beleive that birth control and early abortion is ok but never late-term abortion. Then there are still others who think that abortion should be legal under every and all circumstances....and on and on....opinions all differ.

In light of this, how can one possibly legislate abortion for the masses?

 

[civilcynic]

Sex happens to be the natural activity that leads to child birth. If we are to weigh all the factors involved in the sexual act; physical pleasure, emotional pleasure, fertilization; then we should be able to conclude which of these has the most impact on life and consider that thing the primary purpose. Let us try to be a little less selfish. It boggles my mind that we even have to have this discussion. The purpose for sex is crystal clear.

Sorry for the double post but I can't seem to figure out how to get 2 quotes onto one post

I agree that sex is the vehicle that, as a species, we use to reproduce offspring but I don't agree that procreation is the only important function of sexual activity. If that were so, we would be no different than animals. Sex provides a deep, personal connection and intimacy between 2 people which enhances their relationship with each other and which is not necessarily related to the need to reproduce. I believe the spiritual and emotional benefits a couple experience in love-making is equally important as procreation.

 

[Melody]

No one with even a gram of liberalism in his heart will ever give you a fair hearing.

Ahem.....well, I'm a liberal by the following definition and I would say I've given her a fair hearing:

"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

The point where we all seem to disagree is the point when life begins. Those of us who are anti-abortion believe the life in the womb is a human being with rights...not an "it"...and it is that little person's civil liberties that needs defending since he/she can't do it for him/herself.

 

[Sunstone]

"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

This is just an aside, Melody, but that's a great definition of "Liberal"! Thank you for posting it!

 

[Melody]

This is just an aside, Melody, but that's a great definition of "Liberal"! Thank you for posting it!

Oops....I should've given credit to Webster. I wish I could claim it as my own.

 

[linwood]

Ahem.....well, I'm a liberal by the following definition and I would say I've given her a fair hearing:

You`re right Melody and I`m liberal by the definition you gave also.
I believe I`m beginning to fall victim to the media propaganda flying around here.
Thank you for straightening me out.

All I was trying to say was that there is no need to attack anothers politics or faith in this debate as it just muddies the waters and builds opposition where there need not be any.
Since there will already be more than enough opposition in this debate based soley on the points of the debate itself.

 

[Sunstone]

If the sole or primary purpose of sex were procreation, sex would take nine seconds and involve no emotional bonding between the couple. Wait a minute! That describes my "ex"!??!

 

[Paraprakrti]

If procreation were the primary purpose of sex, than each time of intercourse would produce a pregnancy.

If sustaining life were the primary purpose of heart surgery, then each time of operation would do so. I am sure that if enough foolish people got together and concocted some other reason for heart surgery, then we would be debating about that. The fact that sex doesn’t always produce a pregnancy doesn’t mean anything. The fact that there is an abortion issue proves that it does happen often enough.

The fact is, pregnancy is only possible 5 or so days a month and only those months from puberty to menopause. Contrary to the prohibitions in the Bible, sex is available throughout the month, before and after the "fertile" years. That leaves a whole lot of time for a "secondary" or "tertuary" function wouldn't you say?

How much sex is available is irrelevant. In your military career you may have took part in the death of others. The availability to kill is still there now, but I doubt that you would get a medal this time around. I guess you are proposing the “because I can” philosophy. Abortion is unnecessary killing; especially when the whole ordeal could have been avoided by practicing self-control.

Why just the availability of sex after menopause is probably more than the time when conception is possible. Seems like a poor design if procreation is the sole and most important goal. Would God have been a poor designer or have you misconstrued what God's intentions were?

God also designed it so that you could kill anytime you desire. Have at it, rascal!
Also, your question assumes that God had a particular intention of His own. God is full in Himself, therefore He has no need to seek fulfillment. The only intention involved is our own. The design is fashioned after that intention and the human form of life is the point at which we are able to analyze those original intentions and hopefully come to more intelligent conclusions. Intelligence is power. With power comes responsibility. It isn’t so hard to understand the value of such a statement.

God certainly showed us with the Big Horn Sheep - the female sheep only mate when they are fecund, but then again, the males mate all the time. Since mounting for procreation is only once a year for a short period of time it too seems minor in the scheme of things when those males can enjoy themselves all year round.

Lol… You worry about that next time you are a big horn sheep.

In some of God's creation, some creatures don't even have sex - they reproduce asexually. I guess it's becoming less and less clear.

Yeah, its unclear to me as to why such living organisms aren’t also debating about abortion. I really don’t think you have a valid point here… *Belay your last*.