Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Abortion: Is it time?

Abortion: Is it time?
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 08:11 AM
 
Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

As has been the case for sometime, the majority of Americans think that abortions should not be totally outlawed, but should be severely restricted as compared to current court legislated standards.

Until the Supreme Court legislated "Roe V. Wade" 40 years ago based on a load of untruths, states could make laws and this sort of thing could be decided on a more local level, as our founding fathers intended. At this point, if the courts took an actual Constitutional stand (based on what it says, and not what they would like for it to mean) some states would keep the standards we currently have, while others would likely restrict it to just true emergencies and instances where the life of the mother.

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand) and bring standards back to where the American people (and our founders) wanted them and not based on where some out of touch liberal judges wish our standards to be. "Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 09:30 AM
 
Said founding Americans were also very careful about instituting a political system wherein the minority held a disproportionally large amount of power - i.e. the majority don't get to make decisions just because they're in the majority. America's leaders are handed the power of controlling where the country should go on an informed basis - and that's a lot different than Gallup poll results IMO.

Abortion in some form or other is probably as old as religion, and it's come a long way in the past 50 years. It's here to stay. Period. I'd put your energies towards making it safer, better and extremely well-regulated, rather than trying to return to the days when 20-year-old women have to go to some unlicensed doctor or cross state lines to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 09:40 AM
 
An early form of abortion is proscribed in the Bible for unfaithful wives...

Regardless, I can't support making abortion illegal. I don't particularly like it, but I think that, on balance, it does more good than it does harm. We already have far too many children without homes or, sometimes worse, in abusive homes that we can't help, why would we want to create even more?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 10:16 AM
 
What a misleading thread title.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 10:23 AM
 
Abortion: Is it time - to NOT?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

As has been the case for sometime, the majority of Americans think that abortions should not be totally outlawed, but should be severely restricted as compared to current court legislated standards.

Until the Supreme Court legislated "Roe V. Wade" 40 years ago based on a load of untruths, states could make laws and this sort of thing could be decided on a more local level, as our founding fathers intended. At this point, if the courts took an actual Constitutional stand (based on what it says, and not what they would like for it to mean) some states would keep the standards we currently have, while others would likely restrict it to just true emergencies and instances where the life of the mother.

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand) and bring standards back to where the American people (and our founders) wanted them and not based on where some out of touch liberal judges wish our standards to be. "Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.
Bernard Nathanson, one of the cofounders of NARAL (the group behind "Roe" V Wade), stopped doing abortions(75,000), not for religious reasons (he was an atheist at that time), but due to the development of ultrasound imaging. He said himself the data used in Roe was bogus.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand)...
If a woman is pregnant as a result of incestial rape, who gives a what the man thinks.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.
Yeah, it could be, but you'll be one of the first people on this board to complain about how it's wrong because it doesn't coincide with your personal or religious beliefs. No amount of scientific evidence will change your mind or settle the issue unless it agrees with you.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
An early form of abortion is proscribed in the Bible for unfaithful wives...
This cannot go unchallenged.

Where?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 01:29 PM
 
Abortion will not be going away.

Will it be eroded? Yes, conservatives have been making progress in this area.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 01:40 PM
 
Is it time to increase the crime rate ~20 years from now?

Legalized abortion and crime effect (Wikipedia)

I read about the above effect a couple years ago and found the argument interesting. Basically, the US crime rate made a big drop ~20 years after Roe, and has remained at the lower level since. Most crimes are committed by males 18-24. If one assumes unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, given less resources, etc - then there is a good correlation between the missing population segment and your missing not missing car or other household goods.

I'm not sure that bringing unwanted kids into the world would be an improvement. It has to suck to be such a kid.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
What a misleading thread title.
Indeed. But given the tagline of the site ... "The right news. Right now." ... it's not particularly surprising. If one actually takes the time to look at the actual Gallup poll that was cited you will see the following:

Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life," now 49% and 45%, respectively, in Gallup's 2011 update on U.S. abortion attitudes.
Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views asks Americans if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances.

The plurality of Americans, 50%, continue to choose the middle position on this, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, as majorities or pluralities have since 1975. However, nearly as many, 49%, now hold one of the two more doctrinaire views. This includes 27% wanting abortion legal in all cases and 22% wanting it illegal in all cases.
Since 1994, Gallup has also asked those who think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances to say whether it should be legal in "most" or "only a few" circumstances. On this basis, Americans are rather conservative in their stance on abortion, with 61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances. By contrast, 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances.
The problem here is that the article is doing some rather, uh ... "creative" math to come up with this "61%" figure from the actual Gallup poll. The bottom line from the actual poll itself:

1. 50% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances". 27% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "all cases". So that's a 77% pro-choice majority right there.

2. Of the 50% of Americans who believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances", 61% believe that "certain circumstances " equates to "few circumstances". And 37% believe that "certain circumstances" equates to "most circumstances".

3. If you add those who say "all cases" s/b legal with those who say "most circumstances" s/b legal you have 27% + (37% * .5) respectively ... totaling 45.5%.

4. If you add those who say "all cases" s/b illegal with those who say "few circumstances" s/b legal you have 22% + (61% * .5) respectively ... totaling 52.5%.

#4 is how you would calculate the "all or most abortions should be illegal" figure. Which shows this position to be a slim plurality at best. Quite a ways off from the 61% the article claimed.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 03:13 PM
 
Is it time for another dumb CNS article that twist the facts?

Looking at the Gallup Poll.

More people are pro-choice than pro-life.

More people are now pro-choice compared to 2 years ago; 42% in 2009 compared to 49% today.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Is it time to increase the crime rate ~20 years from now?

Legalized abortion and crime effect (Wikipedia)

I read about the above effect a couple years ago and found the argument interesting. Basically, the US crime rate made a big drop ~20 years after Roe, and has remained at the lower level since. Most crimes are committed by males 18-24. If one assumes unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, given less resources, etc - then there is a good correlation between the missing population segment and your missing not missing car or other household goods.

I'm not sure that bringing unwanted kids into the world would be an improvement. It has to suck to be such a kid.
Margaret Sanger would be proud.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 03:43 PM
 
In this case, we *could* have it both ways. Full pro-choice if the fetus is male. Strict limits on abortion if the fetus is female. So we get the lower crime rate, cut the unwanted children in half, and please both groups.

No wait, we displease both groups. But at least this way, there are more girls for the rest of us. Let's do it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 03:49 PM
 
Pro-choicers; Where would you set the limit? 20 weeks, 24?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand)
Why should men get an equal choice?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
In this case, we *could* have it both ways. Full pro-choice if the fetus is male. Strict limits on abortion if the fetus is female. So we get the lower crime rate, cut the unwanted children in half, and please both groups.

No wait, we displease both groups. But at least this way, there are more girls for the rest of us. Let's do it.
Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.


"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Said founding Americans were also very careful about instituting a political system wherein the minority held a disproportionally large amount of power - i.e. the majority don't get to make decisions just because they're in the majority.
Actually, they do. Unless there are prohibitions against what they want to do in the Constitution. There are no real prohibitions to states legislating on this matter in the Constitution.

Abortion in some form or other is probably as old as religion, and it's come a long way in the past 50 years.
The same can be said about cold blooded murder. Cain and Able come to mind.

It's here to stay. Period. I'd put your energies towards making it safer, better and extremely well-regulated, rather than trying to return to the days when 20-year-old women have to go to some unlicensed doctor or cross state lines to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
Why would we keep a system that makes unjustifiable behavior easier to engage in? Seems counterproductive to progress towards the shared goals of the majority.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Abortion: Is it time - to NOT?
Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 24, 2011 at 04:36 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
If a woman is pregnant as a result of incestial rape, who gives a what the man thinks.
Personally, I agree and I think most others would as well

Yeah, it could be, but you'll be one of the first people on this board to complain about how it's wrong because it doesn't coincide with your personal or religious beliefs.
False.

No amount of scientific evidence will change your mind or settle the issue unless it agrees with you.
False. I've been pretty consistent in my stands. See the "birther" threads.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I50% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances". 27% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "all cases". So that's a 77% pro-choice majority right there.
Generally speaking, the "pro-choice" side has always submitted that abortion should be legal under most circumstances, not just "certain circumstances." All the polls I've ever seen of late, that breaks it down, shows that most people do not want abortion to be legal for circumstances that could be described purely as elective. That is not "pro-choice" as it's known to the majority.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 24, 2011 at 04:37 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Is it time for another dumb CNS article that twist the facts?

Looking at the Gallup Poll.

More people are pro-choice than pro-life.
Self assessed. Essentially, meaningless when it comes to what they actually believe. The fact remains that more American believe that abortion should be severely restricted than those who feel it should be something elective granted via easy access.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:28 PM
 
Please learn to use multi-quote.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
This cannot go unchallenged.

Where?
Numbers 5:12-29

If a man suspects a woman of being unfaithful he's to take her to the priest who will give her 'bitter water'. If she has not been unfaithful she will conceive a child, if she has been unfaithful she will be cursed and made very ill.

Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why should men get an equal choice?
Because they are forced to take equal responsibility.

A man has no opportunity to opt out of providing for offspring as a woman does. If it's "her body," then it logically should be her responsibility.

Unless of course you feel that choosing to have sex is consent to have to later be forced to have to be enslaved for 18 years via confiscation of the fruits your body creates due to your labor. If that's the case, it would seem illogical to suggest that a woman couldn't be forced for 9 months to be slightly inconvenienced as well.

Seems to be an example of unequal protection to me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?
"Bitter Water" is just water mixed with dust, as it applies here.

Chances are, no unborn children were ever damaged in such a ceremony.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:44 PM
 
Well that's a bizarre tack to take.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Generally speaking, the "pro-choice" side has always submitted that abortion should be legal under most circumstances, not just "certain circumstances." All the polls I've ever seen of late, that breaks it down, shows that most people do not want abortion to be legal for circumstances that could be described purely as elective.
Well as it stands we can't derive that from this particular Gallup poll. All we have is this rather nebulous "all, most, or few circumstances" question that was asked. Now having said that, if you really want to honestly delve into this topic then we would need recent polling data on whether or not abortion should be legal in the following specific circumstances:

A. Prior to fetal viability
B. After fetal viability

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Severe deformity
4. To protect the life of the mother
5. To protect the health of the mother

I do believe the clear majority of the American people have consistently favored the legality of abortion in circumstance A. As well as a clear majority consistently being opposed to the legality of abortion in circumstance B ... unless 1 - 5 are involved. Do you have polling data to the contrary?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"Bitter Water" is just water mixed with dust, as it applies here.

Chances are, no unborn children were ever damaged in such a ceremony.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure water mixed with dust wouldn't have any of the effects mentioned in any circumstance, unless it were some very special kid of dust in which case your point is irrelevant. (Unless you're suggesting that the Bible is not a reliable source, in which case I agree; but that won't get us very far in this discussion.)

The point, however, is not whether or not this represents an historical practice that actually occurred and actually had the effect intended. The point is that, in the Bible, God essentially says that the fruits of an unfaithful coupling should be aborted.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.

So, if I were to find a poll that supported something you didn't agree with would it be a good argument for making this become reality? You can't be selective with this sort of stuff.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure water mixed with dust wouldn't have any of the effects mentioned in any circumstance, unless it were some very special kid of dust in which case your point is irrelevant. (Unless you're suggesting that the Bible is not a reliable source, in which case I agree; but that won't get us very far in this discussion.)

The point, however, is not whether or not this represents an historical practice that actually occurred and actually had the effect intended. The point is that, in the Bible, God essentially says that the fruits of an unfaithful coupling should be aborted.
It doesn't say that the woman should choose to abort. It says that as part of the ceremony, unfaithful women would become sick and due to a "curse" by God, would become ill and not give birth.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible is pretty consistent that you'll "reap what you sow" and that (in the Old Testament at least) when you do bad things God won't protect you from bad things from happening.

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, if I were to find a poll that supported something you didn't agree with would it be a good argument for making this become reality? You can't be selective with this sort of stuff.
If you provided evidence that the majority desired something that was not expressly consitutionally banned, would that make a good argument for it becoming reality?

Sure.

Even if I don't agree with it.

Still, sure.

My desire isn't for the laws to reflect my personal beliefs. It would be nice if they did, but I'd settle for if they were actually Constitutionally based and reflected the will of the people.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It doesn't say that the woman should choose to abort. It says that as part of the ceremony, unfaithful women would become sick and due to a "curse" by God, would become ill and not give birth.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible is pretty consistent that you'll "reap what you sow" and that (in the Old Testament at least) when you do bad things God won't protect you from bad things from happening.

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.
Thus providing a Biblical justification for abortion in certain cases (such as rape).

Of course a women can't abort a baby by ingesting regular dust, as I said, that's not the point. Besides there are all sorts of ways that could be interpreted into something slightly more than superstitious nonsense.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:49 PM
 
The implication (to me) is that the priest would take the role of essentially resolving the conflict by deciding, through selecting whatever substance he gave the woman (or not), whether the child would be aborted.

Pennyroyal was an ancient traditional abortifacient, for example.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; May 24, 2011 at 05:57 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
The implication (to me) is that priest would take the role of essentially resolving the conflict by deciding, by selecting (or not) whatever substance he gave the woman, whether the child would be aborted.
Yeah, that's pretty much what it sounds like to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.

Can we normally put two of every animal on a boat?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 06:29 PM
 
isn't that called government intervention?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 06:36 PM
 
And Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.

During the House's debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"

Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"

DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."

Kansas backs bill restricting abortion coverage - McPherson, KS - The McPherson Sentinel
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Numbers 5:12-29

If a man suspects a woman of being unfaithful he's to take her to the priest who will give her 'bitter water'. If she has not been unfaithful she will conceive a child, if she has been unfaithful she will be cursed and made very ill.

Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?
This refers to a jealous husband who is suspicious of his wife's faithfulness, yet has no proof of infidelity. It is a curse to make her barren if she has been unfaithful.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This refers to a jealous husband who is suspicious of his wife's faithfulness, yet has no proof of infidelity. It is a curse to make her barren if she has been unfaithful.
If she was already pregnant as a result of her infidelity, making her barren would surely abort that child.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 10:39 PM
 
I don't understand why babies conceived via rape and incest should get less protection. Isn't that like saying that people conceived this way have less rights? If the goal is to protect human life, then why make these exceptions?
( Last edited by ort888; May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 10:43 PM
 
The abortion debate is nothing more than a classic case of competing rights. The mother's right to choose when to have a baby, vs. the fetus' right to be born. But what rights does a fetus have under the law? It's complicated. The law doesn't consider the fetus to be a full person until he/she is born, but does recognize that a fetus exists and is alive. If a pregnant woman is murdered, there is a good chance the murderer will face two counts of murder. But if a pregnant woman miscarries, nobody tries to arrest the mother.

I am convinced that this ambiguity is so pervasive in our laws that it makes banning abortion impossible: an adult woman's right to have control over her body must take precedence over the ambiguous rights of a fetus. The only way to outlaw most abortions would be to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that definitively establishes the rights of the unborn. I think that has a slim chance of happening.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2011, 11:02 PM
 
In Numbers 5 there is no mention of the woman being pregnant. On the contrary, this is only a test for infidelity and a harsh punishment if any infidelity occurred. This "test" would not need to occur if a conception and pregnancy took place, that would be evidence enough of the woman's fidelity.

The only version[s] of the Bible I can find that mentions "miscarry" is the various NIV translations, which are poor versions regarding translations. The original Hebrew does not say miscarry, but alludes to the reproductive organs by euphemism and threatens barrenness, not miscarriage. Even The Message, which is a pretty liberal interpretation only makes mention of causing the "womb shrivel".
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.
Wait, you're using an intellectually dishonest article to say that we need to avoid intellctual dishonesty?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 12:36 AM
 
Isn't giving birth, and then putting the kid up for adoption technically the same as an abortion? You're not keeping the thing, yes you're giving birth, but since the parent didn't care about the kid, she's just letting it go anyways.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
The abortion debate is nothing more than a classic case of competing rights. The mother's right to choose when to have a baby, vs. the fetus' right to be born. But what rights does a fetus have under the law? It's complicated. The law doesn't consider the fetus to be a full person until he/she is born, but does recognize that a fetus exists and is alive. If a pregnant woman is murdered, there is a good chance the murderer will face two counts of murder. But if a pregnant woman miscarries, nobody tries to arrest the mother.

I am convinced that this ambiguity is so pervasive in our laws that it makes banning abortion impossible: an adult woman's right to have control over her body must take precedence over the ambiguous rights of a fetus. The only way to outlaw most abortions would be to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that definitively establishes the rights of the unborn. I think that has a slim chance of happening.

Very insightful and well said... 5 stars. I like you!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 02:48 AM
 
I've given this some thought. I believe that anytime someone wants an abortion, that the Embryo or Fetus be gently removed from the patient and the Embryo or Fetus must be treated as a human and attempt to give it life saving care.

If the Embryo or Fetus survives, then great, if not it is sad. At no time should a woman be required to carry a Embryo or Fetus for one or 40 weeks. What is wrong is the courts have allowed the murder of human life. There are plenty of people that would love to adopt these young babies but don't have the chance.

I don't think women should ever be required to carry a life form, but I am against out right murder. As I mentioned previously, if the life form survives out of the womb great, if not that's sad, but it is life.

After the woman agrees to the abortion, all knowledge of the life form and where it ended would be kept 100% secret. No one who agreed to an abortion would ever find out if the life form lived or died, or where it ended up.

I have had friends that believe that on the day of delivery, that if the mother even after 9 months and after delivery, if they are not satisfied, the baby should be killed on the delivery table. I had a hard time believing anyone could have such a low value of human life, but I also didn't believe that any woman should be required to carry a life form that she did not want. I just don't believe the life form should be terminated, it should be removed, but treated as a patient not a bug.
( Last edited by Buckaroo; May 25, 2011 at 02:55 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I have had friends that believe that on the day of delivery, that if the mother even after 9 months and after delivery, if they are not satisfied, the baby should be killed on the delivery table.
w u t
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Thus providing a Biblical justification for abortion in certain cases (such as rape).
Not even close.

In one instance, you are actively choosing to kill your offspring. The other, God is cursing a woman due to her sins so she will not have offspring.

Romans 12:19
"Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord."

Using that logic, that verse also provides Biblical justification for revenge. However, in both cases the "Lord" will take action to do as he sees fit.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2011, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Can we normally put two of every animal on a boat?
Not that I'm aware of. If it happened, it was God who made it so. Same as the quotes involving women engaged in sin getting cursed. But, I don't think that anyone here is arguing based on whatever the Bible says. Sounds kind of like a red herring to me.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 25, 2011 at 08:01 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2