Excessive Pro-Life

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Capt. Anarchy, thanks for looking them up and correcting them.

Bronto, fuck off.  If you have somthing intelligent to add, then feel free.  If you feel like spamming, there is a thread for that.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

Ahh, found the original study in its entirety, for anyone who wants too read up:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

That's why abortions happen.

[abe]

capt. anarchy: the only developed countries on that list, other than the US, are finland and japan. the reasons for getting abortions are different in third world counties....
the authors of that study deliberatly compared apples and oranges and deliberatly put the US statistics last. the only thing those statistics tell me is that women in africa, south asia or latin america have other reasons for getting abortions than women in japan and the US. nobody is disputing that....

heres a link for you:
http://www.voters4choice.org/facts/myths.shtml

there is plenty of info on both sides of the issue.

btw, aborting a rapist baby is NOT going to correct a wrong that has already been done, but i WILL ease the womens suffering and anguish. can u imagine having to care for the baby of somone who raped you and the kind of emotions that would stir up in you? i cant.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

Abe, I cited that page because it is the actual study that has statistics for the reasons abortions are preformed in the US. I didn't even look at the statistics for the other countries.

The link you give me has no statistics. All I see on the reasons abortions are preformed is the "women use abortion instead of birth control" "myth". But it also generalizes and says those against abortion are against birth control.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Firstly, I don't answer to all your points because I don't have the time and I really can't be arsed.

Same here...Bucc works with computers so he seems to have plenty of time to read (and quote) every point and reply.  It takes a good bit of work to do all the quoting of individual segments so I just reply more generally and touch on points in seperate paragraphs.  And I skip things I don't have a strong desire to reply to, in an effort to further save time so I can use my time to type the messages I do want to get across better.

Loth, of course I'm reading your posts

Bucc, you ignore my points by simply refuting them without truly understanding or considering them often.  That is why your alleged refuting doesn't really refute anything.

Bucc, I recently took Human Sexuality class.  In the text it cites studies about the benefits of milk.  Babies who have their mother's breastmilk are smarter, have less allergies and are in general healthier than babies that have formula instead.  Also, when formula was used in a baby ophanage, the mortality rates were catastrophic...something like 98%.  I am in no way overstating when I say needing milk to be healthy.

Bucc, if I am in favor of legalizing pot and having it be an option to smoke it, are you saying I'm supporting it and can't possible think smoking pot is a bad thing?  It is just the same as me being in favor of having legal abortions but personally thinking it is a bad thing.  I'm not supporting the action itself, merely having the action be legal.  You can call names all you want but it doesn't change that my view is in no way hypocritical.

It is your opinion that the hardships and pain of carrying a baby to term isn't enough reason...but your opinion doesn't make other opinions invalid or wrong.  So I can hold the opinion that being forced to go through the pains of pregnancy is enough reason to have an abortion and it is no more or less valid as saying it isn't.

Bucc, I say again, I never said the life of an adopted child is crappy, I said the life of a child that is raised by a parent that didn't want it or couldn't afford to support it would be.  If they give the child up for adoption it wouldn't be under that category.  And stop calling my statements absolute.  Every rule has exceptions, that is a fundemental truth so if I say something is some way, obviously not everything is exactly that way, just the general result.  I have never claimed that any of my statements apply for every single case ever.  You are saying my statements are absolute when they aren't...your misinterpretation of context isn't my fault.

Odd, so the many advocates of safe legal abortions, the many advocates of needle exchange programs, etc are just stupid morons?  There is a very good reason behind these stances and that is caring about humans.  Rape and murder are violent crimes, abortion and drug use aren't.  There are distinctions between crimes and you can't just say something is good for how to treat one crime that it is good for any other crime.

Sorry, but I bring a fact about the effect of banning abortion is that it has no effect other than to risk the lives of mothers but you are free to disregard it and continue to think your opinion is more valuable than my facts taken from textbooks.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Let me ask a simple question.  If a couple does everything in their power to prevent a pregnancy...basically the woman is on the pill or the man wears a condom.  Shouldn't they be able to get an abortion if she gets pregnant?  They obviously don't want a child, but it isn't like they were careless and then use it to make up for it.  They were careful not to have a baby and they did anyway.  Why shouldn't they be able to use the one method for preventing it after the fact as well?

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Heh...this is good stuff. I apologize for the roughness of this but I'm in a rush.

Think of this. You're saying a baby doesn't have life until the second trimester. How are you defining life? Because I'm pretty damn sure that the egg that's fertilized by sperm is alive and well with cells. Cells are alive. They're an important part of our life cycle. Without them...we die. So yes....a baby is alive in the womb no matter what. From start to finish. Laws were made so women and men who "screw up" have an exuse to get rid of a life they don't want. They can fuck all they want without the risk ("the risk" would be from their point of view) of having a child. It's fucking sad that someone considers childbirth a risk. Your parachute not opening when you're skydiving is a risk...not childbirth.

For those that believe in Jesus. What if Mary had just lobbed off Jesus' head because she didn't want to have a child out of wedlock? What would you say then....Oh it was her body and she could do what she wanted with it. HAH! You just killed the son of god.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

If that tough-ass sperm can break through the condom, survive the contraceptives, and fertilize that egg, I think it fuckin' deserves to have its child born.

[cookie]

 No one is "pro-abortion"

exactly why they call it "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion"  

[abe]

uh, no.

if a terrist manages to get through our borders, elude the FBI and intelligence community and put a canister full of Vx gas into the A-train in NYC, would that mean that he deserves to kill thousands. i think not....maybe the analogy is a bit far fetched, but i think u get the point.

Py, i like to have sex (a lot, actually) not because i wanna make babies , but i because i like to get laid. given that i have no income of my own and wont have enough to support a child for some time, at the present moment, i consider my girlfreind getting pregnant a risk. that doesnt mean that it will be a risk 20 yrs from now. people DO have sex for other reasons than making babies, so there are circumstances where pregnancy is a risk.
also, its funny to see pro-life people get all scientific on you...
py, an amoeba (sp?) is also made up of cells, yet killing one is not murder. furhtermore, your sperm cells are alive too.....are you committing murder everytime you wank off? should women have funerals every 28 days?
i hope one day (provided you ever get laid  ), you will be in a postion where u screwed up and have to decide between an abortion and your absolutist views on the subject.....
in the end, if im deciding between the rights of fetus and those of an adult woman, ill go with the women who has a name, a personality and a life, none of which the fetus has.
bondo, just remember its impossible to argue with people who have g-d and "morality" on their side. i guess were just g-dless and immoral people.(sarcasm)

[abe]

 No one is "pro-abortion"

exactly why they call it "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion"  

why exactly do they call it "pro-life" and not "pro-trampling-on-women's-right-to-decide-what-to-do-with-their-body"?
even "anti-abortion" would seem a bit more appropriate and neutral, considering how many "pro-life" people are for the death penalty as well.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

Abe, because that was too long and didn't serve their cause, of course.

Also, that analogy is a little more than far fetched... nobody dies when a child is born... quite the opposite.

And for the last time.. it's not "her" body. It's her childs body.

[tasty]

Also, since obviously the perspective of the man has already been covered here, I thought I would enter an argument from the perspective of the woman. This is part of the transcript from the actual Roe v Wade case argued at the supreme court, from the winning lawyer in that case (Sarah Weddington).

Excuse me, Your Honor. Thank you. Texas, for example, it appears to us, would not allow any relief at all, even in situations where the mother would suffer perhaps serious physical or mental harm. There is certainly a great question about it. If the pregnancy would result in the birth of a deformed or defective child, she has no relief. Regardless of the circumstances of conception, whether it was because of rape, incest, whether she is extremely immature, she has no relief. I think it's without question that pregnancy to a woman can completely disrupt her life. Whether she's unmarried; whether she's pursuing an education; whether she's pursuing a career; whether she has family problems; all of the problems of personal and family life, for a woman, are bound up in the problem of abortion. For example, in our State there are many schools where a woman is forced to quit if she becomes pregnant. In the City of Austin that is true. A woman, if she becomes pregnant, and is in high school, must drop out of regular education process. And that's true of some colleges in our State. In the matter of employment, she often is forced to quit at an early point in her pregnancy. She has no provision for maternity leave. She has.. she cannot get unemployment compensation under our laws, because the laws hold that she is not eligible for employment, being pregnant, and therefore is eligible for no unemployment compensation. At the same time, she can get no welfare to help her at a time when she has no unemployment compensation and she's not eligible for any help in getting a job to provide for herself. There is no duty for employers to rehire women if they must drop out to carry a pregnancy to term. And, of course, this is especially hard on the many women in Texas who are heads of their own households and must provide for their already existing children. And, obviously, the responsibility of raising a child is a most serious one, and at times an emotional investment that must be made, cannot be denied. So, a pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life. And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this certainly - in as far as there are any rights which are fundamental - is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

can u imagine having to care for the baby of somone who raped you and the kind of emotions that would stir up in you? i cant.

I can't imagine how horrible it would feel to end a human life either.  But peolpe seem to be getting past that by devaluing the life potential of an unborn child.

So, I went to your link.  And it didn't add anything.  Nobody has brought up any of those "myths" but one or two.  Out of the nine they site, most haven't been brought up, and they even got a couple wrong, and one was written in a misleading way.

What they got wrong:
They say it's a myth that abortions happen in all nine months.  Then they go on to show the percentages.  And guess what, they show abortions happening in all months (more of less).  They point out reasons and low percentages of these late term, but that goes to show it's not a myth.  The myth would be if someone said most happen late.

They say that all the groups that don't agree with abortion, also don't agree with birth control.  While this is often true, it is also often not.  They are perpetuating a myth of their own like that.

They presume that all women that get abortions are responsible, because they'd have to be to come to that decision.  That is a circular argument.  And it is just as wrong as saying that all women that gete abortions are not responsible.  Neither is extreme is true.

Where they played word games:
They say "women use abortion instead of birth control" is a myth (to them).  Tricky wording.  Nobody has said instead.  I've said "as a method", not the only method.  Nobody has argued that these women don't use other forms of birth control.  But the article words it as if it is not being used as birth control, if another form of birth control has failed.  That's not quite true.  Secondary birth control is still birth control.

They say "adoptioin is the solution" in the myth, not "adoptioin is A solution".  They say giving up the baby can be traumatic.  But they don't site any studies.  When they do site them earlier, they mention two (there are more, but these two fit their view) and it's LONG TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.  But, when talking about adoption, they say it "can be traumatic".  Hard on the one side, soft on the other.  

So I see lots of fluff.  Lots of word games.  And no mention of the child, just the mother.  So it completely ignores what's better for the unborn child, just what's good for the mother.  It completely ignores the father.  

It's a very narrow view.

[abe]

capt.

duh, thats why dont use that name.....it was a rhethorical question, genius. however, i still don't understand what the problem with "anti-abortion" is. imo, it is more accurate, since most of the people who endorse the "pro-life" agenda are against abortion, rather than being for life. or how about pro-fetus or pro-embryo. theres a positive one that would convery your message rather well.

second: you completely missed the point of that analogy. i was simply saying that just because a sperm/terrorist gets through, doesnt mean that it is welcome. thats all. try this: just because rabbits get through the fence in your yard, get past the dog and start proliferating (i.e. fucking) in your backyard, does that mean you have to let the rabbits stay? after all, they ARE bringing life into this world, even though you never wanted a rabbit colony in your backyard.

finally, the fetus is only officially a child once it pops out the cavity, so as long as shes carrying the baby in her womb, it IS her body and she should have the right to decide whether she wants to go through childbirth (which, i gather, really isnt that much fun itself) and be responsible for raising a child. i'm completely against the notion that the child has any sort of claim or rights, especially when people make them out to be more important than the rights of an adult female.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

And I skip things I don't have a strong desire to reply to, in an effort to further save time so I can use my time to type the messages I do want to get across better.

I can understand not having a strong desire to reply to things that you can't refute.  I can really understand you not having a strong desire to reply to many questions, that you just can't.  Why would you have a strong desire to reply to them?  It's hard to  defend your position when you haven't thought it all the way out.  When you don't have an answer.

Bucc, you ignore my points by simply refuting them without truly understanding or considering them often.  That is why your alleged refuting doesn't really refute anything.

Do me the honor of proving that.  Show me where I don't consider them.  I never call bullshit without explaining why.  You may not agree with me, but you are just as likely not to understand my reply as I was to not understand your point in the first place.  So I call bullshit and ask you to prove where I have not considered them OFTEN (not just once, but OFTEN).  Can you do that?

In the text it cites studies about the benefits of milk.  Babies who have their mother's breastmilk are smarter, have less allergies and are in general healthier than babies that have formula instead.  

They haven't proven the smarter part.  It is a theory right now according the books they have us reading (the very pro breast feeding books).  But yes, I've agreed that breast milk is better.  You have ignored twice the comments about a wet nurse (do you not know what it is, or just don't want to accept that they exist)?

Also, when formula was used in a baby ophanage, the mortality rates were catastrophic...something like 98%.  I am in no way overstating when I say needing milk to be healthy.

98% of the babies died in an orphanage?!  OMG.  That place should have been torn down and all the workers never allowed to touch a child ever again.  To ever look at a child.  Where was this death camp for babies.  I don't think a jew in a Nazi concentratioin camp had that bad of odds.  Only 2 out of every 100 babies survived?  Where was this??

Oh, and tell me what it had to do with formula?  Was it poisoned?  Was this hundreds of years ago, when it was gruel?  Was it last year, with a baby formula that was approved by the FDA?  Was it a good formula, very close chemically to mothers milk?

Tell us all about it!  I've never heard of any place that killed 98% of the babies.  Not on fucking accident.  Tell us!

Bucc, if I am in favor of legalizing pot and having it be an option to smoke it, are you saying I'm supporting it and can't possible think smoking pot is a bad thing?

I'm saying that if you are in favor of legalizing pot, you support people smoking it.  Cut out anything else, it's fluff.  You are supporting people to smoke it.  Can you think it's bad and still support it.  YES.  I support the legalization of pot too.  But I don't lie to myself about it.  I believe it is the right of people to do things that are bad for them, if that's what they want.  So I am supporting them and their choice.  Just like you are.

It is your opinion that the hardships and pain of carrying a baby to term isn't enough reason...

Yep, it's an opinion.  And I say it is.  But, you don't give the whole opinion of mine.  Do it justice.  I don't think it's reason enough to end a life.  And that's the issue pro-choice advocates ignore the most.  What you are talking about is ending a life.  And that life is as innocent as it gets.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I never said the life of an adopted child is crappy, I said the life of a child that is raised by a parent that didn't want it or couldn't afford to support it would be.  

Nope.  I pointed that out the very first time.  YOU DIDN'T SAY RAISED BY.  Don't blame me, or anyone else, if that's what you were thinking.  Because that is not what you wrote, and I wasn't the only one here to catch it.  

And even when we touched that side of the argument, we said a crappy life is better then no life, and the kid could always kill itself if it was that bad (since you are for suiside).

You are saying my statements are absolute when they aren't...

Bullshit.  It's the way you write them.  You use words like ALL and EVERY.  Not my fault you can't use words like MANY, SOME, A MAJORITY or A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE instead, where they belong.  You often accuse me of ALWAYS doing something.  And when I point out it isn't always, you start to waffle.  Is it my fault you had a shitty education in logic?  Well, that or it just didn't take, you tell me which one.  It's been said in many ways, and I'm sorry you don't get it, but they are weak arguments to use those absolute terms.

So write what you mean.  If you don't mean them as absolute, don't write them that way.

There is a very good reason behind these stances and that is caring about humans.  Rape and murder are violent crimes, abortion and drug use aren't.

AND HERE IS THE CRUX OF MY ARGUMENT!  WHY ARE UNBORN CHILDREN NOT HUMANS IN YOUR OPINION?

How am I not caring about humans in my arguments.  I'm caring about the father and the child, besides just the mother.  You are caring only about the mother.  Who is caring more about humans in that case??

And I say that abortion is a violent crime.  That's my opinion.  To drop to the level of some others here, I'll get graphic.  You are ripping the baby to pieces.  How is that not violent?  But, that's actually not as important to me as the fact that you are just ending a life.

<sarcasim>So because I care more about the rights of all the individuals involved, I don't care as much.  That was a solid argument there.  </sarcasim>  LOL

Sorry, but I bring a fact about the effect of banning abortion is that it has no effect other than to risk the lives of mothers but you are free to disregard it and continue to think your opinion is more valuable than my facts taken from textbooks.

I didn't ignore it.  I addressed it and gave you an opinion on why we should protect those breaking the law.  That's not disregarding it.  If you want an example of disregarding things, you completely disregarded my response.  What a fucking hypocrite.

You got a fact out of a textbook.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with a conclusion you draw from it, does it?  Did I say that the number was bullshit?  NO.  I said I don't think it is a reason to make things safer for criminals.  Especially ones I consider VIOLENT CRIMINALS.  And I asked what you thought about making it safer for rapist and murderers.  

That's not disregarding, that's failing to see the importance of.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

finally, the fetus is only officially a child once it pops out the cavity, so as long as shes carrying the baby in her womb, it IS her body

You keep saying it.  I keep asking WHY.  Sooner or later, I'll get an answer.  Like I said, living and growing in her womb doesn't make it any more her body then a tapeworm is part of her body.  

Which brings us to rights:

i'm completely against the notion that the child has any sort of claim or rights,

Again, I keep hearing this, I'm not hearing a why.  I ask again.  WHY?  

especially when people make them out to be more important than the rights of an adult female.

Well, that unborn child is as innocent as any human can claim.  They haven't done anything wrong yet.

But, more to the point.  I've never said they should have MORE rights.  But they should have the basic right to life (in my opinion).  

If it comes down to the mother's life or the childs life, well, nobody has said the child comes first here, have they?  Equality may be argued, but the only people arguing one persons rights over the others are the people that say only the mother has rights.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I've written a lot there, so I wanted to sum up a bit.

Most of my argument is:

You are giving more rights to the mother, then to the father of unborn child.  This isn't new for the human race, we've done it to just about eveyone we could.  That kind of thinking brought us slavery, racism and sexism.  This is no different.  200 years ago, you could kill a slave in this country, because it's life wasn't thought to have as much worth.  It didn't have rights.  Well the "it" was people.  And we changed our tune, those people have rights, and aren't slaves anymore.  So, who was right?  The slave owners that could kill them, legally?  Or the civil rights activists?  Anyone here for slavery?

Well, anytime we give more rights to someone, we give less to someone else.  And in every other case we see this as wrong.  Why not in this case?  I can come up with excuses on why whittie should get paid more then the black man (KKK and American NAZI sites are full of them).  I can come up with plenty of excuses on why men earn more pay then women.  Or why they should be promoted more.  I can come up with plenty of excuses as to why arab-americans should be herded like cattle and their liberties suspended for the good of the country.  But they are all excuses.  Logic will tear most of them to shreds in seconds.  The ones that logic cant tear to shred are just too based on opinion and stated worth.  But does anyone here think that any of these things should still exist in America?  Should they?

Half of what was in that tidbit from Roe v Wade was out of date (and I'm happy it is).  Women don't get kicked out of school anymore, or fired, or most of the other things that used to wrongly happen to pregnant women.  Not because of abortion, but because they were wrong, and we see that now.  Just like other civil rights.  Should we go back to those ways for any reason?

So, what I'm looking for is a real, logical reason why the mothers rights are more important the the fathers, and the unborn childs.  Why, when we keep breaking down that barrier of putting one group ahead of others, does this one still linger?  

I've heard because it's painless.  But we can kill anyone and make it painless.

I've heard because it's part of her body, but I don't agree and nobody has told me why I'm wrong.

I've heard because illegal abortions are more dangerous.  But, if they are illegal, why should they be safe?

I've heard because our society says so.  But our society said slavery was ok to.  Is it?  Can't we learn better?

Anyone?  Anyone out there have a logical reason why unborn children don't have rights, but a baby one second out of the womb does?  

And if they do, how do they feel that if you shoot a pregnant woman, and kill the unborn child, it is considered murder in most states?  Why is it murder when someone other then the mother is doing it? (I'd have to look up before I say all, learn that lesson Bondo).

[abe]

bah, i erased my whole post. ill try to recreate the main points.

bucc, i dont consider an embryo to be a human being for the same reason i dont consider a fertilized chicken egg to be a chicken.....i doubt you will take that as an answer, though.
tapeworm- who are you to tell a women whether she should remove a tapeworm or keep it. she is the one whose gonna be losing weight, shitting soup and feeling sick, not you. the same goes for the fetus, imo

next point- now, given that i don't consider the embryo to be a human being, why should it have any rights? your whole arguement hinges on the notion that an embryo or "unborn child", to use your emotional terminology, is, in fact a human being......my arguement hinges on the opposite assumption, so i guess thats where the difference in opinion comes from....

and finally rights- imo, forcing a mother to have a child against her will, when abortion is an option, is infringing on her rights to liberty and to pursue happiness. since, as ive made clear, i dont view the child as a human being per se, i dont think it should have, why should i acknoledge that it has any rights.

and speaking of rights: you have made some pretty libertarian statements in the past (i.e pot or gun control). you are against the government regulating firearms (eventhough they kill countless fully hatched americans each year), but you are for them regulating the most intimate part of a women's body? i find it somewhat contradictory to want to keep the government out of your gun cabinet, but at the same time want the government to regulate a women's uterus.