[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Their other services are outnumbered 10-1 by abortion services. There are 138 abortions performed for each referral to adoption services for example.

The options are presented in an unbiased manner, the choice is made by the parents. Despite the number of abortions chosen over adoption, overall abortion rates are at their lowest rate in 20 years. This is because of access to contraceptives and sex education.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Does this include money spent on lawsuits launched by them against school districts that include teaching abstinence programs?

You're damn right it does when a school district makes a religious decision and offers to teach abstinence programs in place of sex education. Teenagers and young adults are not going to be protected from sexually transmitted diseases or avoid unwanted pregnancies because God loves them. Despite being told not to have sex, some will, and those that do will be at risk.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Teen pregnancy? Up. STDs among the predominant age group seeking their services? Up.

Up 3% in the last year, down 78% since 1980 with the push for sex education in schools. Similar figures for STDs, down around 70% over the past few decades

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By doubling the amount of money you funnel into PP, you're only guaranteeing twice the number of the absolute least reliable prophylactics money can buy.

Least reliable? 78% decrease in teen pregnancies, 70% decrease in sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion at a 20-year all time low.

Hormones will overcome abstinence more often than not, and not educating our kids about safe sex is only going to make it worse.

When it comes to sex, Planned Parenthood has been more effective for people than Jesus' love for the past 20 years.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

subego's specific argument here: rephrasing "psychological problems" into "great emotional stress" to counter your implied claim that not having some form of psychological problem is a natural reaction to having an abortion. (Your claim is correct, hence the revision)

"Emotional distress" is not a "psychological problem." I don't buy it. Lots of decisions in life cause "emotional distress." First day of school, job interviews, buying a house, reading MacNN, all these things cause "emotional distress." That doesn't mean they're "psychological problems," and it certainly doesn't mean they should be regulated by the nanny state, to save people from their own decisions which may or may not cause "emotional distress" on themselves. This whole line of argument is absurd. Even if having an abortion was some sort of one-way ticket to "psychological problems," and I still dispute that it is, that's no reason for it to be illegal, otherwise soldiers would be barred from combat lest they give themselves "psychological problems" like PTSD, dentists would be barred from dentistry to avoid "psychological problems" like depression, and drivers would be banned from driving during rush hour because they might give themselves road rage. Guess what: tax cuts cause liberals lots of "psychological problems" like paranoia and bleeding heart syndrome (even when the liberals are the ones benefiting the most from them), but you won't see stupendousman arguing to veto the tax cuts so as to prevent those consequences. Because his "psychological problems" angle is BS.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Emotional distress" is not a "psychological problem." I don't buy it.

I'm curious what you took my qualifier "[y]our claim is correct, hence the revision" to mean.

I put that there for a reason.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't know what it means, you contradict yourself a lot. It's confusing.

If you weaken the claim from "psychological problems" to "emotional stress," then my objection is even more true. Even more things in life cause "emotional distress," in fact you'd be hard pressed to find anything in life that doesn't cause "emotional distress" to someone. So what? So what if abortion causes emotional stress to some people who choose to subject themselves to it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't know what it means, you contradict yourself a lot. It's confusing.

stupendousman: Having an abortion causes psychological problems.
Uncle Skeleton: No it doesn't.
subego: Yes it does. If it doesn't they still have psychological problems.
US: That's a tautology.
s: You are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. Would you accept "emotional distress" as a more accurate descriptor of what stupendousman termed "psychological problems"?
US: What was the question?
s: Since I am declaring the natural response to having an abortion as "emotional stress" would you accept that people who do not feel this emotional distress have "psychological problems"?
US: "Emotional distress" is not a "psychological problem".
s: What?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

stupendousman: Having an abortion causes psychological problems.
Uncle Skeleton: No it doesn't.
subego: Yes it does. If it doesn't they still have psychological problems.
US: That's a tautology.
s: You are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. Would you accept "emotional distress" as a more accurate descriptor of what stupendousman termed "psychological problems"?
US: What was the question?
s: Since I am declaring the natural response to having an abortion as "emotional stress" would you accept that people who do not feel this emotional distress have "psychological problems"?
US: "Emotional distress" is not a "psychological problem".
s: What?

US: what? Why would anyone care whether abortion causes emotional stress, when every activity done by anyone every second of every day could be described as causing emotional stress? We both agree that's not what stupendousman was talking about (right?), so what does it matter?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The options are presented in an unbiased manner, the choice is made by the parents.

The woman who gave us the purple sheet told us about her son mentioning that if she had it to do over again and abortion had been available, she'd have aborted. This is not an "unbiased" presentation of all options. Nothing at all was mentioned of adoption. Nothing. Have you been to a Planned Parenthood office??? There are too many documented cases against PP for you to try passing this BS off as truth.

Despite the number of abortions chosen over adoption, (by pressure through the teen girl's boyfriend) overall abortion rates are at their lowest rate in 20 years because of tighter state restrictions on the procedure.

fixed.

This is because of access to contraceptives and sex education.

There is more to suggest that parental involvement and informed-consent statutes implemented throughout the Southern and Midwestern states (where the sharpest declines were witnessed) has more to do with the decline than teaching kids how to have sex using a contraceptive. After all, you're asking kids to "all of a sudden" be responsible at the most critical point of their irresponsible behavior. "Remember, just cuz you got that jimmie-cap on doesn't mean you don't have to pull out son."

With increasing usage of more advanced pregnancy monitoring such as the sonogram debunking the myth that a fetus is nothing more than a glob of cells, this decline is no surprise to me.

You're damn right it does when a school district makes a religious decision and offers to teach abstinence programs in place of sex education.

Not in place of, but in tandem with. Of course, I didn't mention religious teaching. I see you're not really supporting PP as much as you're opposing something else. Try to keep your irrelevant vitriol for differing world views at a minimum here, it might help you make a point.

Teenagers and young adults are not going to be protected from sexually transmitted diseases or avoid unwanted pregnancies because God loves them. Despite being told not to have sex, some will, and those that do will be at risk.

Right, just like they'll skip Monday through Wednesday on their birth control and take 4 on Thursday or not pull out because they've got a condom on.

Up 3% in the last year, down 78% since 1980 with the push for sex education in schools.

From 86 to 91, there was a 23% increase in teen pregnancies. There was a 14 year decline, but that is no longer the case. From 2002 to present, there has been a steady 3% incline in teen pregnancies. So like I said... teen pregnancy? Up. The fact that it had hit absolutely catastrophic proportions since Roe V Wade and declined is not saying much. What goes up is bound to come down.

Similar figures for STDs, down around 70% over the past few decades

medpagetoday
Reported chlamydia cases in the U.S. topped one million in 2006, and diagnoses of gonorrhea and syphilis rose as well, CDC surveillance experts reported.

A total of 1,030,911 chlamydia diagnoses were reported in the U.S. in 2006, up from 976,445 in 2005, and the actual number of infections is probably on the order of 2.8 million, estimated Douglas M. Johnson, Jr., M.D., and colleagues, of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention.

Rates of gonorrhea remained relatively stable, with only slight increases from 2005 to 2006. A total of 358,366 cases of gonorrhea were reported in 2006, making it the second most commonly reported infectious disease.

Although rates of primary and secondary syphilis reached a nadir in 2000, the rate has been creeping back up, and from 2005 to 2006 the rates for both primary and secondary increased from 2.9 per 100,000 to 3.3 per 100,000, translating into an absolute increase of 13.8%.

Continued rise in 2007
According to a US Canters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) annual report on the national trends of three notifiable sexually transmitted diseases: chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis; the rate of reported infections continues to rise, and as before, it is likely the official data represents only a small part of the true national picture. Not only are many cases of these diseases undiagnosed and unreported, but the figures do not cover other highly prevalent infections, such as human papillomavirus and genital herpes.

So as I said, STDs? Up.

Least reliable?

Yep, the Planned Parenthood Honeydew brand condom was rated absolute least reliable by Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports condom ratings

78% decrease in teen pregnancies, 70% decrease in sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion at a 20-year all time low.

3% increase in teen pregnancies and net 15.86% increase in STDs.

Hormones will overcome abstinence more often than not, and not educating our kids about safe sex is only going to make it worse.

Better they should learn to manage those hormones before adulthood. I mean we all do. It's not like kids are running around humping knotholes in trees regardless of the sexually enraged crap they're watching on TV. After all, with the rise in teen pregnancy, STDs, and unwanted children; it hardly makes sense to exclude the teaching of abstinence because you're opposed to some world view. The only 100% reliable method of avoiding the above is abstinence. Period.

When it comes to African Americans, Latinos, and poor people; Planned Parenthood has been more effective at genocide than Jesus' love for the past 20 years.

True that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why would anyone care whether abortion causes emotional stress, when every activity done by anyone every second of every day could be described as causing emotional stress?

I think I get to call shenanigans on this.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We both agree that's not what stupendousman was talking about (right?)

How would I know? I would say that the only evidence we have (which is by no means incontrovertible) is he's participated since I rephrased the statement and hasn't raised an objection.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

so what does it matter?

In one sense, not very much. The tangent we've been on is true vs. untrue, which is a different argument than relevant vs. irrelevant. Upthread, I posed the question of relevance to stupendousman, at least WRT the question of whether it should be legal or not.

OTOH, while emotional distress may not be relevant to whether abortion should be legal, it's really relevant to abortions. I think the ultimate thrust of stupendousman's argument is that such relevances get pushed to the wayside in the debate over legality.

Of course it's important whether abortion is legal or not (and I think it should be), but it's more important that abortion really ****ing sucks. Many (but by no means all) of those who label themselves as pro-choice, in their vehemence to defend the former, lose some sight of the latter.

If that seems somewhat one-sided, recall I pledged not to ambush people who took issue with its legality. Rest assured I have numerous issues with how they conduct the argument as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

abortion really ****ing sucks.

Here's my point: that doesn't differentiate it from unwanted pregnancy, nor from a wanted pregnancy for that matter. You might as well say "abortion is something only women do." So is going to the bathroom in groups and peeing sitting down, so what?. It's a non-sequitor. What I'm saying is that you really need to spell out what you think the implications are of this, beyond the "hmm, that's interesting." Because really, it's not.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I'm saying is that you really need to spell out what you think the implications are of this, beyond the "hmm, that's interesting." Because really, it's not.

If an attempt to explain my position (at your request, no less) provokes a galling lecture about what my obligations are, you give very little incentive for this discussion to continue.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're the one who started with the cursing, not me. It's a little late to pretend this isn't supposed to be adversarial.

[subego]

God damn I'm slow sometimes.

Uncle Skeleton, consider all my arguments beyond the topic (where the two sides can meet) withdrawn, and I hope you accept my apologies for any frustration I have caused you. I absolutely never had the intent to do so.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Don't worry about it; arguments and misunderstandings are why I visit here (it doesn't mean I'm really upset)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

God damn I'm slow sometimes.

Uncle Skeleton, consider all my arguments beyond the topic (where the two sides can meet) withdrawn, and I hope you accept my apologies for any frustration I have caused you. I absolutely never had the intent to do so.

This has got to be the single biggest display of humility and fairness I've seen around here in a long time. Let this be the standard by which all posters should be gauged henceforth.

Slow or not, you're good peepz subego.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It sure looks to me like people today are more opposed to the Iraq war than abortion.

- 57% say the war in Iraq was wrong
- 52% say the war in Iraq was not morally justified
- 62% would prefer a president who would end the war rather than continue it

Touché. It seems to be the desire to end the procedure. I thought this was possible going in and hit 'Submit Reply' anyway. I will say this has more to do with long-term controversy however. Had things gone swimmingly well in Iraq, I have a hunch those who overwhelmingly supported the Iraq procedure in the first place would've maintained resolve.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This has got to be...

Why, thank you.

[Monique]

Yes I would agree with it. As long as my sisters who need to have an abortion would be able to get safely, without any harrassment by the anti-choice, anti women movement and that doctors would not get murdered by the so-called pro-life movement activists.

[Monique]

Losing a child through adoption is the worst ever. That child grows in you for 9 month and this is it you are not allowed to be called a mother, you are a tramp (according to the conservatives), you are treated like dirt by the medical establishment. It is the worst thing ever.

Abortion is easy, you forget easily because it happens within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, you have not felt the child moved because it is not a child it is only a fertilized egg as big as the head of a needle.

You guys have no clue whatsover.

You know the women who actually are distressed by an abortion are the one who unfortunatly have met a pro life person.

The rest of us are just fine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You've never met a pro-life person? Then how did you develop such a revulsion of them?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Yes I would agree with it. As long as my sisters who need to have an abortion would be able to get safely, without any harrassment by the anti-choice, anti women movement and that doctors would not get murdered by the so-called pro-life movement activists.

First of all, females are being aborted too.

Secondly, if we're going to frame this issue in its absolute absurdity; your nemesis would say that the problem here is liberal, anti-life, anti-baby, nymphomaniacs, and their sex-crazed, persuasive boyfriends repeatedly killing those of all potential occupations for nothing more than sex, an easy way out of the implications of it, and blood lust. Disgusting right? Yeah, I agree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Losing a child through adoption is the worst ever.

Adopting a child is the best ever.

That child grows in you for 9 month and this is it you are not allowed to be called a mother

Unable to have your own children; the selfless act of another woman carrying a child for 9 months means that you can finally be called a mother today and the selfless woman perhaps tomorrow.

you are a tramp (according to the conservatives)

Projection, strawmen... so many flaws in this line of reasoning there's nowhere to start.

you are treated like dirt by the medical establishment.

Not true. This is a generality that cannot be quantified. Go ahead, I challenge you to present me with cases of women being treated worse by the medical establishment for adoption services over abortion services. No? Thought not.

Abortion is easy, you forget easily because it happens within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, you have not felt the child moved because it is not a child it is only a fertilized egg as big as the head of a needle.

First of all, there wouldn't be such a vast array of post-abortion counseling if it were this easy. Second of all, almost 5% of abortions are performed after 8 weeks. Thirdly, is feeling the baby the criteria that separates a child from a mere fertilized egg? Is there some magical demarcation yet provided by the medical establishment that affirms this notion? Trust me, I've spoken to enough women who've had the procedure to know that many of them don't forget.

You guys have no clue whatsover.

You're got it backwards. The ones that persuade their girlfriend to have an abortion against her wishes don't have a clue.

You know the women who actually are distressed by an abortion are the one who unfortunatly have met a pro life person.

Wrong again. A great many women who were distressed by an abortion sought the council of a pro-life person.

The rest of us are just fine.

I'm skeptical.

[Monique]

ebuddy:

What would you say to a woman that comes to you and tells you that she does not regret having an abortion and that it was the best decision that she took then.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

ebuddy:

What would you say to a woman that comes to you and tells you that she does not regret having an abortion and that it was the best decision that she took then.

Well, if she were all up in my face about it I suppose I'd tell her that I do not regret having my children and that it was the best decision for both of us then?

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT IS LIKE?

[Monique]

Unless you are a woman and stuck in a very bad situation; you would never know what it is like to have to take such a decision.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From 86 to 91, there was a 23% increase in teen pregnancies. There was a 14 year decline, but that is no longer the case. From 2002 to present, there has been a steady 3% incline in teen pregnancies. So like I said... teen pregnancy? Up...

Coinciding with the introduction of sex education as a required school curriculum, overall for the past 25+ years that has been an over 70% reduction. That includes baby boomers, which you would think given their liberal upbringings by their 1960s and 1970s parents they might be more promiscuous.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So as I said, STDs? Up.

...

3% increase in teen pregnancies and net 15.86% increase in STDs.

Over the past 2 or 3 years. Overall, for the past 25+ years, there has been an over 70% decrease.

Trends do have a huge impact. I think teenagers are less worried now or don't take it as seriously because they didn't go through the AIDS scare of the 1980s. Plus, it seems like cancer is "more important" than AIDS when it comes to educating people about their health. I think there was a South Park episode making fun of that trend.

There are trend cycles, but Planned Parenthood and sex education has been extremely effective.

Also, sex education in my high school included talks of abstinence. However, the general message is that if you have sex, you need to protect yourself and your partner. The best solution is, as you stated, to not have sex. But teenagers go to parties, they smoke pot or they drink, they get silly, and it happens.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Unless you are a woman and stuck in a very bad situation; you would never know what it is like to have to take such a decision.

I'm not a woman so in this sense you're right, I'll never understand. I do know that most women feel more strongly opposed to abortion than men and it is in fact men that have given this industry the most thrust. 65% of women who sought abortions were urged to do so by first the boy involved, then a parent. Perhaps I wouldn't be as opposed to abortion if I truly felt it was her choice.

You seem to frame this in a "you're not a women, you wouldn't understand" sort of way and when I remind you that in fact it is men usurping authority over women on this issue, you fail to reply. I look forward to you finally addressing this point.

My then-girlfriend, now-wife and I were stuck in a bad situation. In fact, my wife and I were participants in creating this situation. Not everyone chooses the same route out of a bad situation. I acknowledge the complexities of the very bad situations like rape and incest as they constitute approximately 1% of abortions performed. I have no problem allowing abortion in those circumstances if nothing more than ensuring the bastard who did it is held to account and cannot do it again. As for the majority remainder of abortions, I believe they are harming women more than they know. I believe this denial by proponents of it (primarily boyfriends and parents) is no more believable than proponents of the tobacco industry denying the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer. Half of the abortions performed are the second or third. I have little compassion for one who ends up in this "very bad situation" repeatedly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Coinciding with the introduction of sex education as a required school curriculum, overall for the past 25+ years that has been an over 70% reduction. That includes baby boomers, which you would think given their liberal upbringings by their 1960s and 1970s parents they might be more promiscuous.

Again, STDs having reached what was considered epidemic proportions declining is a forgone conclusion. What goes up to this degree is bound to come back down. Unfortunately, it is coming back up in relatively short order. If your proposed solution were this effective, the rate of STDs should decrease to a norm and remain static.

Over the past 2 or 3 years. Overall, for the past 25+ years, there has been an over 70% decrease.

I believe the over 15% steady incline in STDs suggests it is climbing back to norm. Rubber-band effect. Having reached astronomical proportions, then declining significantly makes sense.

Trends do have a huge impact. I think teenagers are less worried now or don't take it as seriously because they didn't go through the AIDS scare of the 1980s. Plus, it seems like cancer is "more important" than AIDS when it comes to educating people about their health. I think there was a South Park episode making fun of that trend.

There are trend cycles, but Planned Parenthood and sex education has been extremely effective.

Sex education perhaps and in this I'd be willing to offer Planned Parenthood some credibility. This is not what I've taken issue with them over primarily.

Also, sex education in my high school included talks of abstinence. However, the general message is that if you have sex, you need to protect yourself and your partner. The best solution is, as you stated, to not have sex. But teenagers go to parties, they smoke pot or they drink, they get silly, and it happens.

There are odds just as there are trends. A child who finds themselves in the above "silly" situations more regularly (thus, increasing their odds of STDs and unwanted pregnancies) are those dominantly in poorer socioeconomic positions with less parental involvement. I'd argue that it is not the wisdom of educating a child how to properly use a condom while plastered that is more effective than a message of parental involvement and abstinence. I think this is evidenced by the fact that while sex education has been static to increasing, STDs are on the rise again in spite. Planned Parenthood addresses a symptom of the problem in one sense while exacerbating the problem in another. Regularly available abortions on demand are not helping this issue or the mentality that propagates it IMO.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by subego 

shake out for you

Curious phrasal verb. Care to define it?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not a woman so in this sense you're right, I'll never understand. I do know that most women feel more strongly opposed to abortion than men and it is in fact men that have given this industry the most thrust. 65% of women who sought abortions were urged to do so by first the boy involved, then a parent. Perhaps I wouldn't be as opposed to abortion if I truly felt it was her choice.

You seem to frame this in a "you're not a women, you wouldn't understand" sort of way and when I remind you that in fact it is men usurping authority over women on this issue, you fail to reply. I look forward to you finally addressing this point.

My then-girlfriend, now-wife and I were stuck in a bad situation. In fact, my wife and I were participants in creating this situation. Not everyone chooses the same route out of a bad situation. I acknowledge the complexities of the very bad situations like rape and incest as they constitute approximately 1% of abortions performed. I have no problem allowing abortion in those circumstances if nothing more than ensuring the bastard who did it is held to account and cannot do it again. As for the majority remainder of abortions, I believe they are harming women more than they know. I believe this denial by proponents of it (primarily boyfriends and parents) is no more believable than proponents of the tobacco industry denying the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer. Half of the abortions performed are the second or third. I have little compassion for one who ends up in this "very bad situation" repeatedly.

You obviously aren't the in the camp that an abortion is "murder" since you allow for the possibility in cases of rape or incest (those circumstances are necessarily irrelevant if one regards a fetus as a human being with the requisite rights), so it seems to me that this boils down to you passing judgement on the circumstances of others.

I think there's something in the New Testament about that sort of behavior.

To anyone who thinks it's worth your while to fight abortion, I offer this counter-suggestion: Promote healthy sex education and fight poverty instead.

You'll prevent a lot more abortions that way, I guarantee it.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You obviously aren't the in the camp that an abortion is "murder" since you allow for the possibility in cases of rape or incest (those circumstances are necessarily irrelevant if one regards a fetus as a human being with the requisite rights), so it seems to me that this boils down to you passing judgement on the circumstances of others.

You are exactly right, his flip flop on this led to my ignoring him on this issue last year, its either murder or its not, and because it was a rapist sperm that means the murder is ok? I would like to hear how this is justified. Personally I don't feel it is murder and it is a personal choice that should not be financed by the fed. gov.

[Monique]

Why is it so hard for pro-life people to leave women alone and let them take whatever decision better fit their lives.

It is nobody business if a woman gets an abortion or not!

It this would happen to a man we would not have this discussion and abortions would have been legal all along.

Since it is about women, men give themselves the permission to interfere in this VERY PRIVATE ISSUE.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Why is it so hard for pro-life people to leave women alone and let them take whatever decision better fit their lives.

Do you really find the pro-life position that incomprehensible?

[subego]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

You are exactly right, his flip flop on this led to my ignoring him on this issue last year, its either murder or its not, and because it was a rapist sperm that means the murder is ok? I would like to hear how this is justified. Personally I don't feel it is murder and it is a personal choice that should not be financed by the fed. gov.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You obviously aren't the in the camp that an abortion is "murder" since you allow for the possibility in cases of rape or incest (those circumstances are necessarily irrelevant if one regards a fetus as a human being with the requisite rights), so it seems to me that this boils down to you passing judgement on the circumstances of others.

I think there's something in the New Testament about that sort of behavior.

To anyone who thinks it's worth your while to fight abortion, I offer this counter-suggestion: Promote healthy sex education and fight poverty instead.

You'll prevent a lot more abortions that way, I guarantee it.

Seeing as how he's said an acceptable solution (were it legally tenable) would be to allow each woman one abortion, where is he flip-flopping? This strikes me as the opposite of judging someone by their circumstances.

Likewise, I may have missed him talking about murder, but he's certainly spent far more effort discussing the effects on the woman than the unborn.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You obviously aren't the in the camp that an abortion is "murder" since you allow for the possibility in cases of rape or incest (those circumstances are necessarily irrelevant if one regards a fetus as a human being with the requisite rights), so it seems to me that this boils down to you passing judgement on the circumstances of others.

I think there's something in the New Testament about that sort of behavior.

To anyone who thinks it's worth your while to fight abortion, I offer this counter-suggestion: Promote healthy sex education and fight poverty instead.

You'll prevent a lot more abortions that way, I guarantee it.

Originally Posted by zerostar

You are exactly right, his flip flop on this led to my ignoring him on this issue last year, its either murder or its not, and because it was a rapist sperm that means the murder is ok? I would like to hear how this is justified. Personally I don't feel it is murder and it is a personal choice that should not be financed by the fed. gov.

I can see why you'd both want to frame the debate in this manner. After all, this is why the pro-life attempt at making the procedure entirely illegal has ultimately failed.

Let me ask you which is worse; 12,000 murders or 1.2 million murders? Now let me ask in what bizarro world is many more murders better than many fewer murders?

*hint, these are trick questions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You obviously aren't the in the camp that an abortion is "murder" since you allow for the possibility in cases of rape or incest (those circumstances are necessarily irrelevant if one regards a fetus as a human being with the requisite rights), so it seems to me that this boils down to you passing judgement on the circumstances of others.

No, rather this is me passing judgment on an industry that is abusing vulnerable women's health for monetary gain and political posturing.

I think there's something in the New Testament about that sort of behavior.

Not to judge lest I be judged? Judge me, I'm cool with that.

What is "lacking judgment" again? Oh, that's right. It's when someone who doesn't know or believe in Scripture has the audacity to attempt holding someone who does accountable to it.

To anyone who thinks it's worth your while to fight abortion, I offer this counter-suggestion: Promote healthy sex education and fight poverty instead. You'll prevent a lot more abortions that way, I guarantee it.

I thought abortion was a way of fighting poverty??? I do agree with the point in general, but don't forget parental involvement and informed-consent statutes. They help an awful lot too. Trust me.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, rather this is me passing judgment on an industry that is abusing vulnerable women's health for monetary gain and political posturing.


Not to judge lest I be judged? Judge me, I'm cool with that.

What is "lacking judgment" again? Oh, that's right. It's when someone who doesn't know or believe in Scripture has the audacity to attempt holding someone who does accountable to it.


I thought abortion was a way of fighting poverty??? I do agree with the point in general, but don't forget parental involvement and informed-consent statutes. They help an awful lot too. Trust me.

I think it takes less temerity to call people out for their hypocrisy than it does for the hypocrites to be what they are. I find it a continual irony that I live closer to Jesus's teaching in the New Testament than most of the conservative Christians that I know.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that applies to you. I don't know you that well. It does, however, seem as if you've simply sidestepped the issue with sarcasm than actually addressed the point made: that your entire argument involves your personal beliefs about what pursuing an abortion says about the individual responsibility of the parties involved.

I personally agree with you. I think responsible individuals should own up to their choices and that the creation of human life is too profound an event to ever dismiss.

My morality, though, is irrelevant in this case. I believe it's wrong, but what I believe is wrong based on my personal moral code should not dictate what is and is not legal. What I believe is the relevant question is: Does the government have any imperative or right to control abortion?

I'm not sure what your parental involvement and informed consent comment was supposed to mean in context, but I will say this about parental consent:

It's a no-brainer.

A minor is a minor. My kids couldn't get a dental exam without my consent, obviously no minor should be able to elect for a surgical procedure without parental consent.

I've heard the counter-argument of "but some kids will face such a horrible situation from parents that don't understand...etc. etc." That's probably true, but it is not the state's place to interfere in family affairs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Does the government have any imperative or right to control abortion?

Going back to my original question, this is why I see at least some logic to the notion of the government not paying for it.

[Monique]

If it gets the anti-women (pro life group) out of my private life; so be it there should not be any government involvement in funding.

This is ashamed because poor women will abort anyway in usafe conditions, like having someone use knitting needle through there vagina and into their uterus to dislodge this very very small egg that is causing hell into their lives. Or any other instrument like it then probably will bleed to death and if lucky (if you can say it) have their uterus removed because it has been damaged forever.

You do not know really how abortions were practised before Roe vs Wade and the damage it caused becaused you pro-life (anti women) people did not care nor care right now. Women's lives were always cheap for conservatives; you did not care nor care right now. We are disposable, our feelings still are. If you think it is easy to give up a child for adoption, make one right now and give it up. You will see that is a lot harder. I know what I am talking about, I was forced to give up my child for adoption because of it I had a nervous breakdown, I cried everyday for 10 years, then I got used to the lost, but there is always this emptiness within me. I am not allowed to know where she is even though she is now 32 years old. I was adopted and I am not allowed to know who the women who gave birth to me is, I am not allowed to know about my medical inheritance, my roots. All this because you pro-lifer anti women conservatives made women have babies they did not want. So what, I would not be alive today, I would not know about it; my adoptive parents would have adopted other people. In my time in Quebec, orphans were taken to asylums and their lives were totally broken. You must be thrilled about it. Not every child born in those days had a wonderful life.

On the opposite sprectrum I had an abortion 5 years after the birth of my daughter, and I do not regret it for a second; I rarely think about it. It happened at the eight week and with a minimum amount of pain. I never had any nightmares, or sadness about it. I know many women who had abortions and feel exactly like I do. Among them my very best friend who hate children with a passion, never wanted one, unfortunatly she got pregnant once had an abortion and never felt bad about it. Then, she got sterilized at the age of 25 to make sure it would never happened again.

ebuddy you can't possibly know how many women regret having abortions. Your little anti-women church do not take care of 35 million women.

We are intelligent beings and able to take a decision for ourselves.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Monique 

We are intelligent beings and able to take a decision for ourselves.

Obviously not intelligent enough to figure out that when opening your legs, naked penis equals baby while naked battery-powered plastic penis substitute equals no baby.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think it takes less temerity to call people out for their hypocrisy than it does for the hypocrites to be what they are. I find it a continual irony that I live closer to Jesus's teaching in the New Testament than most of the conservative Christians that I know.

I've not argued anything here from the Christian or Biblical perspective. I'm left wondering if you brought up Christianity and Scripture as a strawman. After all, this certainly wasn't spawned from any provocation on my part.

I'd be willing to bet that perhaps in some areas you do live closer to Jesus' teachings and in other cases perhaps not. I'm interested in why any of this is relevant.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that applies to you. I don't know you that well. It does, however, seem as if you've simply sidestepped the issue with sarcasm than actually addressed the point made: that your entire argument involves your personal beliefs about what pursuing an abortion says about the individual responsibility of the parties involved.

I've not argued from this perspective either. I addressed your point by illustrating exactly why it was illogical. This isn't a side-step at all. You tried to trap me into some kind of "got'cha" and it didn't work, now you want to question my faith. This is disingenuous to the core. If you'd like to have an honest conversation, I'll be here.

Now, what exactly did I say that indicated a personal belief about what pursuing an abortion says about the individual responsibility of the parties involved? I think what's happening here is you're aware that I'm a Christian and instead of paying attention to what I'm saying, you've assigned an argument for me and insist on arguing against that fabrication. You give a good example of this below.

My morality, though, is irrelevant in this case. I believe it's wrong, but what I believe is wrong based on my personal moral code should not dictate what is and is not legal. What I believe is the relevant question is: Does the government have any imperative or right to control abortion?

I never argued that the government should step in because I believe abortion is morally wrong. I have opinions certainly and I've given them just as you've given yours.

To your question, the government would have just as much right in this regard as it would to require me to wear a seatbelt, or avoid prostitution, drugs, etc...

I believe there is an industry that is preying on the very complex situations of young people caught in a bind by exploiting their situation for a buck. Given the connections between abortion and breast cancer as well as a host of other complications caused by abortions on women, they are obligated to interfere on behalf of the vulnerable. This is entirely consistent with an established precedent of Federal capacity.

I'm not sure what your parental involvement and informed consent comment was supposed to mean in context, but I will say this about parental consent:

Earlier I had stated that the above were instrumental in decreasing the rate of abortions in the States in which they were encouraged and enacted.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've not argued anything here from the Christian or Biblical perspective. I'm left wondering if you brought up Christianity and Scripture as a strawman. After all, this certainly wasn't spawned from any provocation on my part.

I'd be willing to bet that perhaps in some areas you do live closer to Jesus' teachings and in other cases perhaps not. I'm interested in why any of this is relevant.


I've not argued from this perspective either. I addressed your point by illustrating exactly why it was illogical. This isn't a side-step at all. You tried to trap me into some kind of "got'cha" and it didn't work, now you want to question my faith. This is disingenuous to the core. If you'd like to have an honest conversation, I'll be here.

Now, what exactly did I say that indicated a personal belief about what pursuing an abortion says about the individual responsibility of the parties involved? I think what's happening here is you're aware that I'm a Christian and instead of paying attention to what I'm saying, you've assigned an argument for me and insist on arguing against that fabrication. You give a good example of this below.


I never argued that the government should step in because I believe abortion is morally wrong. I have opinions certainly and I've given them just as you've given yours.

To your question, the government would have just as much right in this regard as it would to require me to wear a seatbelt, or avoid prostitution, drugs, etc...

I believe there is an industry that is preying on the very complex situations of young people caught in a bind by exploiting their situation for a buck. Given the connections between abortion and breast cancer as well as a host of other complications caused by abortions on women, they are obligated to interfere on behalf of the vulnerable. This is entirely consistent with an established precedent of Federal capacity.


Earlier I had stated that the above were instrumental in decreasing the rate of abortions in the States in which they were encouraged and enacted.

If you ban the industry, young women will still seek out and procure abortions. While I agree there are certainly cynical individuals and firms exploiting people's demand for abortions, that's true of any capitalist enterprise. Insurance companies prey on people's fears. Doctors capitalize on misfortune. Your assertion that it is this unavoidable reality of any market that is the problem raises questions as to motive.

I will readily admit that I have not read every post in this thread. I popped in to make an observation that didn't even necessarily apply to you. If I've mischaracterized your positions in my subsequent responses, I apologize. However, it certainly *seemed* from the general direction of the conversation that notions of responsibility were deeply rooted in what you were saying earlier. Perhaps I missed something that established a different context for those remarks.

That said, I don't see anything illogical about my own comments, so you'd have to explain that more clearly if you wanted me to respond.

Religion is obviously relevant (and you suggesting for a split second that it might not be is the strawman, thank you) as any digging reveals that discussion of abortion is invariably linked to religious views. Usually it's right there at the surface, unless there are people involved who are desperate not to accept that their views stem, deep down, from religious dogma.

And as to your comment about the government's right to ban prostitution, drugs, etc. For the record, I don't think it's governments place in any of those cases either. I'm something of a libertarian when it comes to individual liberties, (Read "something" as "rabid.") so I don't see how government has any business legislating anyone's morality. Victimless crimes simply shouldn't be crimes at all.

[rogermugs]

i posted a blog entry about my thoughts on it a bit ago.
to me it is just simply homicide
on the same level as the holocaust...

Murder, death, the Holocaust, and our complacency (Psalms 28:4-5, 9)


so yes, I have a problem with it being acceptable in any way, on any level, in any facet of society. in the same way I have a problem with murder.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by rogermugs 

i posted a blog entry about my thoughts on it a bit ago.
to me it is just simply homicide
on the same level as the holocaust...

Murder, death, the Holocaust, and our complacency (Psalms 28:4-5, 9)
so yes, I have a problem with it being acceptable in any way, on any level, in any facet of society. in the same way I have a problem with murder.

I appreciate your view on this rogermugs, but this has been the crux of the problem with the pro-life movement. There was never a concession on this front which allowed the procedure to become entirely legal.

It's fine to say; "I oppose it in all cases as murder", but the fact remains that too many are thinking; "would I want to carry a rapist's seed to term?", "would I want to carry the product of incest to term?" We might be thinking 'yes', but too many put themselves in that position and cannot fathom doing so. Then, there's the back-alley abortion. Granted, these all would constitute less than 5% of abortions performed, but what you're left with is a pro-abortion front that is united against an anti-abortion front that is divided and hence, legalized abortion. Instead of less murder, we have more murder. I'm not saying your view has less integrity, but this is where we are today.

[stupendousman]

I have personal opinions on the subject, and an opinion based on logic and the Constitution as to what the laws should actually be. My personal opinion really doesn't matter that much since I'll do what my conscience tells me. Logic and the Constitution though.....

Right now, the laws regarding abortion and even after-birth parental rights and responsibilities have no real basis in logic or the Constitution. They have went way down the slippery slope created by left-leaning courts hoping to control the issue where they really didn't have any authority. Were the Constitution is silent, rights have been invented and where the Constitution is clear (equality for the sexes) laws have been developed which provide men with less rights than women.

If we simply had the laws comply with:

A. Our current scientific definition of what "alive" means in regards to people outside the womb.

B. Standards supported by the majority (polls show people approve of abortion being legal in some cases, but not in others).

C. Give both sexes equal rights.

...I think that we could have a common-sense solution that complies with what the Constitution actually says and the Founding Fathers actually intended (which isn't the case now), while still ensuring that people in the most desperate of situations (a small minority of those seeking abortions) can do what they think needs to be done within reason.

Of course, "common sense" will likely never happen. There are too many people to wrapped up in their own sense of convenience and desire for anarchy for it likely to happen anytime soon.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If you ban the industry, young women will still seek out and procure abortions. While I agree there are certainly cynical individuals and firms exploiting people's demand for abortions, that's true of any capitalist enterprise. Insurance companies prey on people's fears. Doctors capitalize on misfortune. Your assertion that it is this unavoidable reality of any market that is the problem raises questions as to motive.

My general view is that of greater-good. Yes, there are those who would seek the procedure regardless and this is unfortunate. I don't know any other way to say it, but to acknowledge it. The number of those who would is actually quite miniscule. A boyfriend would have an easier time convincing a girl to have a medical procedure performed in a medical establishment than in a back-alley, but in most cases it is in fact at someone else's urging that the procedure is performed. If it weren't an option, for most it would simply not be an option.

As for insurance companies etc... they are heavily regulated. There is a long process of certification involved and they are constantly under legal scrutiny as well as the other practices you mentioned. We have a free market, but it is not generally free to induce health risks from it's services without government oversight. i.e. most of our tomatoes are fine, but there is the possibility that you'll die of salmonella so... if you just sign this little waiver and send it in to Delmonte... No. They pull it from the shelves entirely. The situation here is not "victimless".

I will readily admit that I have not read every post in this thread. I popped in to make an observation that didn't even necessarily apply to you. If I've mischaracterized your positions in my subsequent responses, I apologize. However, it certainly *seemed* from the general direction of the conversation that notions of responsibility were deeply rooted in what you were saying earlier. Perhaps I missed something that established a different context for those remarks

.
Certainly, I'm opinionated on this issue in a variety of ways, but that doesn't mean I can't have more logical arguments against it. i.e. Some people may believe the US is imperialist and oppose our action in Iraq. This attitude may be at the core of their problem, but may oppose our actions in Iraq using a host of logical arguments.

That said, I don't see anything illogical about my own comments, so you'd have to explain that more clearly if you wanted me to respond.

You opposed my argument for less murder by trying to suggest that I support some murder. I felt this was disingenuous. Right now there is all murder, I'm advocating less murder. I've acknowledged that the problem with those who oppose abortion is they are not as united as those who support abortion and now abortion is law.

Religion is obviously relevant (and you suggesting for a split second that it might not be is the strawman, thank you) as any digging reveals that discussion of abortion is invariably linked to religious views.

My problem with this is that religion becomes the source of the argument instead of weighing the merits of the arguments themselves. This issue is framed as such specifically to detract from the arguments, not address them. It would hardly make sense for me to come into a thread as diverse as this with; "Because the Bible says so" would it?

Usually it's right there at the surface, unless there are people involved who are desperate not to accept that their views stem, deep down, from religious dogma.

With the exception that this fails to acknowledge the dogma or motives of another kind. You can say that regarding life in the highest order is an exclusively religious "dogma", but I'd have to disagree. Either way, this doesn't mean that there are no merits to the arguments I've given. Should I likewise assume you're a promiscuous man who is concerned about maintaining the abortion option and argue you from that premise? This is why civil conversation in this place is sometimes next to impossible. Instead of digging deep down into speculation on one's philosophical world view, we should be addressing the arguments themselves. Besides, there are those in this thread who've admitted they are not religious and have espoused opposition to abortion or in the least... opposition to the funding of it. (of course to which i agree)

And as to your comment about the government's right to ban prostitution, drugs, etc. For the record, I don't think it's governments place in any of those cases either. I'm something of a libertarian when it comes to individual liberties, (Read "something" as "rabid.") so I don't see how government has any business legislating anyone's morality. Victimless crimes simply shouldn't be crimes at all.

It's "victimless" of course until they decide to sell their wares outside your home on your street corner. It's "victimless" until the 'John' ends up with an STD. It's "victimless" until you consider how incredibly persuasive a pimp can be to a vulnerable woman who's in financial trouble. Drugs are usually pretty heavily at play in these instances too. Just because most Americans claim to believe in God or 'a god' does not mean "because the Bible says so" would be a good argument to them.

[rogermugs]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate your view on this rogermugs, but this has been the crux of the problem with the pro-life movement. There was never a concession on this front which allowed the procedure to become entirely legal.

It's fine to say; "I oppose it in all cases as murder", but the fact remains that too many are thinking; "would I want to carry a rapist's seed to term?", "would I want to carry the product of incest to term?" We might be thinking 'yes', but too many put themselves in that position and cannot fathom doing so. Then, there's the back-alley abortion. Granted, these all would constitute less than 5% of abortions performed, but what you're left with is a pro-abortion front that is united against an anti-abortion front that is divided and hence, legalized abortion. Instead of less murder, we have more murder. I'm not saying your view has less integrity, but this is where we are today.

i hear what you're saying ebuddy...
but the reason we're unwilling to concede even a little bit is that we still see it as a murder is a murder is a murder. weather it results from rape (which in my opinion is about the only thing that can happen to a person worse than a painful death) or not...

i'm not saying those things are easy... but murder is not the answer even if they're not...
- i know people think otherwise... i'm just saying thats why we think what we think -

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by rogermugs 

i'm not saying those things are easy... but murder is not the answer even if they're not...
- i know people think otherwise... i'm just saying thats why we think what we think -

The problem is not everyone defines it as "murder". If you refuse to see that there are circumstances which put this in a "gray" area legally, and you are going to try to legislate morality that the majority might not agree with, you're probably not going to end up with laws regarding this matters which will be any more solid or respected.

I believe it is "murder", but also understand that there are as many people who disagree with my position as agree, and forcing my view on people is just as bad as the courts doing it for others. There has to be a logical middle ground we can come to in order come to a fair compromise. Right now, the law isn't fair and results in record numbers of deaths.

We can do better in a way that is fair, respects the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the sanctity of human life while recognizing that the differences in opinion regarding this matter are deep and wide. "All or nothing" on either side simply won't work, IMO.

[rogermugs]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is not everyone defines it as "murder". If you refuse to see that there are circumstances which put this in a "gray" area legally, and you are going to try to legislate morality that the majority might not agree with, you're probably not going to end up with laws regarding this matters which will be any more solid or respected.

I believe it is "murder", but also understand that there are as many people who disagree with my position as agree, and forcing my view on people is just as bad as the courts doing it for others. There has to be a logical middle ground we can come to in order come to a fair compromise. Right now, the law isn't fair and results in record numbers of deaths.

We can do better in a way that is fair, respects the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the sanctity of human life while recognizing that the differences in opinion regarding this matter are deep and wide. "All or nothing" on either side simply won't work, IMO.

to me that sounds a bit like "so there's nothing we can do about it" and "whats been decided is the right decision because the masses have decided so"
i just fear we'll look back at the whole thing ashamed of it in the same way we did on the holocaust.
actually. i hope someday we do. it would mean we've come around. understanding the mistake.

[Monique]

UNCLE DOOF:

Since you guys refuse to take any sort of responsibilities before, during and after. So BE QUIET when we have to deal with this problem afterward.

Unlike you I am an imperfect human being and made a few mistakes. I am the one who paid for them not you.

It is easy for you to judge others since you think you are so perfect but be careful; Jesus said you should not judge others or you will be going to hell.

[rogermugs]

Originally Posted by Monique 

UNCLE DOOF:

Since you guys refuse to take any sort of responsibilities before, during and after. So BE QUIET when we have to deal with this problem afterward.

Unlike you I am an imperfect human being and made a few mistakes. I am the one who paid for them not you.

It is easy for you to judge others since you think you are so perfect but be careful; Jesus said you should not judge others or you will be going to hell.

as a person who is quite in love with jesus, i would just like to express my shock at the absurdity of this comment