I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman

 

"Changing norms in society"? Well, there's people out there now that think that if you don't "like" your 2 year-old, you can off it -

There is truth - and it is black and white (not racial terms for those that think in the progressive terms)

You're stretching... and not making any sense doing it with the example. Who exactly are these "some people"?

Again, there is no such thing as truth. There is fact and there is belief. You believe what you want to believe for whatever you believe it, but don't call it truth and expect anyone else to accept it as fact.

It is a fact that your above comment applies to you as much as anyone. Your belief that an unborn baby is not human is just that.... a belief. Perhaps you telling yourself that it is a fact will help you sleep but in the end it is only your belief.

I sleep just fine. I do not ruminant and worry about "what if's" as you seem to do.

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

reply to post by RealWoman


You are all about "subjective", aren't you? Nothing "objective" in your world.

However one "feels" is how it should be.

if something can exist in a state declared "dead", then i suppose its opposite has to be considered "live".

there doesn't seem to be any argument over the criteria for a state of "dead". only its opposite....


what happens if a conjoined twin decides its other half is just a "mass of cells" or declares its other half not "live"?

who makes the call? lefty or righty? it inevitably turns into an arguement of survival of the fittest. same logic applies to the position of most abortionists.

i foresee a science fiction narrative in the future where a highly intelligent fetus may deem its "parent" as nothing more than a suitable host or "mass of cells".

Abortion would not be a choice for me, that being said, don't you all think that the double standard in this issue is absurd? A woman can and does decide on her own without the partners consent most of the times. He has no say in it, if she wants to abort, there is nothing holding her back. A man can plead and beg, perhaps because he is ready and willing to take on the responsability, that doesn't count. On top of that she will probably ask for him to pay for the procedure.

If she decides to keep the baby, the man has no choice but to pay for the next 18 yrs. There should be provisions in the law that allow for the partner to have a say in such an important matter. This will probably be a bit unpopular, but it's the way I see it.

A little outside the box, can a man press charges on awoman for stolen property if she gets pregnant without her partners consent? I am reffering to women that tell a guy "i'm on the pill" or better yet, the ones that go as far as removing semen from a condom. He didn't agree to that. But she will definitely make him pay. All men are not scumbags, and not all women are saints, just sayin'..

-sigh-
A person planning on bearing the fetus to birth is raising a life to be.
A person whom got knocked up and is going to quickly remove the process is not.

The idea of when a baby becomes a lifeform is contingent on 2 things
first off, it is a life no matter what when it has thoughts (not technical life, but a person..personhood). no thoughts, no life..its a potato.

Second off, it can be from day one if the mother to be is wanting that baby.

Your right..logical discussion on this issue is impossible, because the anti-choice folks refuse to hear the whole side.
Look at page one, second is it? comment about Ms. Perry, a person knowingly lying and misrepresenting the quote to go from her discussing how life can actually be at conception and perhaps even before, to a complete false statement and representation.
That type of mindset is in your corner, and its no wonder why the whole anti-choice movement is losing ground with people like that lying left and right.

I'm not sure why the OP was confused on this as a bit of studying on Roe V. Wade would have yielded that the issue is about a woman's right to her body and not the growing fetus inside her.

charles1952


There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

Actually after having read through everything I could find regarding the case I believe that lack of "standard" was a consideration in how this case played out.

The boyfriend is not facing murder charges under the Unborn victims of Violence act. Instead they reached a plea agreement in the case based on verifiable facts. It could not be proven that the Cytotec he gave her which is considered an abortion medication actually caused her miscarriage as according to her account she only took one of the sublingual cytotec tablets that he had provided her masked as amoxicillin and there is no proof that only one tablet would be a sufficient dose as normal prescribing does is 2 tablets. There is also question of whether it would cause the fetal heartbeat to cease since that is not one of the reactions caused by this drug that induces miscarriage. So there you go on that. On the other hand he did admit that it was his intent to induce a miscarriage.

The subject was raised regarding his rights if he didn't want the baby and she insisted on keeping it, since he requested she abort it. In taped phone conversations they both agreed that she had absolved him of responsibility for the child if such was his wish, but she did not want to give the pregnancy up because she had had an abortion previous and she didn't want to go down that path again.

He admitted in court Monday that he intentionally tricked his pregnant girlfriend into taking a drug he hoped would cause a miscarriage. Welden accepted responsibility for giving Lee the prescription medication Cytotec, which the prosecution has called an abortion drug.

The possibility of a mandatory life sentence on an unusual murder charge under the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” was taken off the table as the prosecution allowed Welden to plead guilty to the lesser offenses of tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

Welden agreed to waive his right to a trial and admit he forged his physician father’s signature on a Cytotec prescription and then switched the label to make it look like an antibiotic, giving it to Lee and telling her his father said she had an infection. Lee, who was about six or seven weeks pregnant, lost the baby within a couple of days.

Both sides are recommending a sentence of 13 years 8 months in federal prison, but his sentencing hearing will not be held until December and there is a US District Judge who could impose a heavier sentence so we'll have to wait and see.

She is considering a civil lawsuit.

What he did in my opinion deserves prison time. He admitted to using one of his fathers Prescription pads to forge a prescription. That in itself is illegal and grounds for jail time. The prescription he forged was for a drug in which he had full knowledge of it's use in inducing miscarriage or abortions. He was a medical student BTW. He then scraped identifying marks off of the pills and relabeled the bottle to say it was amoxicillin, to make his assertions that his father had diagnosed her with a bacterial infection via a blood test taken during the pregnancy check up and ultrasound. He had the drugs sent fed ex thus the mail fraud charge. He broke a number of laws in the process of obtaining and convincing her that it was important for her to take a drug that caused her pain, suffering, bleeding, hospitalization and harm.

Most of this information can be found here including transcripts and recording of phone calls

The Jury is out on this one women and men make the decision after having " accidental unprotected sex" yeah yeah - that they cannot be bothered to both togeather take extra precautions ie , the morning after pill.

So to prevent more orphans in the world which is what would/could happen .. they are killing them before they gain consciousness.

Its not nice but it is THAT BASIC.

If these men and women have this babies, when they don't want them... basically we are going to see millions of more orphans and who is going to look after them?..

reply to post by beezzer


are you going to take care of the millions of unwanted babies that will arrive if abortion is outlawed then???

reply to post by Lightseeker77


You are saying a woman should not have the legal right to abort if her partner doesn't want it?

Which will mean a huge influx of single parents who are male.

Bottom line is he deceptively and without her consent interfered in her body's

on going functions.

Its because logic lies outside ethics. The issue is really a larger one when perceived logically.

If induced abortion was removed as an option and all those pregnancies carried to a successful full term, logically with a current estimate of 40-50 million abortions per year world-wide, that becomes a sizable increase in birth-rate.
Lets assume that medical abortions were still performed, as these are necessary, that reduces it by 17.5 %
Leaving us with an increase of 33-41.2 million in the birth rate per year.
Now over just 1 decade thats an extra 330-410.2 million mouths to feed and water and provide for in addition to the current population growth, in an already mismanaged and overburdened system (Fresh water is a key factor here, theres not as much available as you think). This will increase poverty, war, famine, and drought.

The question is:

Is the short term 'feel-good' moral blanket worth the definite increase in global suffering, remember that many of these fresh additions to the gene pool will be suffering a lot of their lives, a kind of social torture if you will.
' We made sure you got the chance to be miserable and suffer with us '

Logically, no it is not worth the greater long term suffering

"Were I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." "Or the one."

In this case the half-man from Vulcan is right.



The answer lies in prevention of unwanted pregnancy, ie better education

(Forced pregnancy in cases of rape and incest should also be choice of the mother. Its obvious what many will choose, but its being given the choice that counts.)

The Abortion Debate is based on men not willing to change their sexual behaviour and therefore placing all the responsibility on women, while trying to effectively emotionally blackmail them into keeping children they cannot afford, are not mature enough to raise and care for, all because they dont like the idea of their seed getting aborted.

Its a woman's issue that only men seem to want to discuss. You dont see women starting threads on male circumcision. And lastly, say they made abortions illegal tomorrow, do you honestly believe that would be for the better? Really?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


That would be true if anti-abortion advocates were all men, however that is not the case. So it is false logic.

Views Differ by Generation and Party, Not Gender
Men and women are nearly identical in their views about the legality and morality of abortion, as well as in the percentage labeling themselves "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life." By contrast, adults 55 and older have somewhat more conservative views on abortion than do young and middle-aged Americans. This is most pronounced with respect to the abortion labels. Majorities of adults under 55 call themselves "pro-choice," while about half of those 55 and older are "pro-life."
Notably, adults 18 to 34 are neither more nor less supportive of abortion rights than those aged 35 to 54. This conforms to a recent Gallup review of abortion trends by age, which shows younger and middle-aged adults' views converging since 2000.

Although this is just the US in this example you get the picture

reply to post by Tidnabnilims



Are you not going to answer the rest of my post?

If they banned abortion tomorrow, how do you think it would effect society?

/Waiting to be schooled

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Not sure what you are driving at here, i'm pro choice and stated my logical reasons for being so. You are approaching this as if I am anti. I dont think abortion should be made illegal tomorrow or ever, I think the solution is in education
thus greatly reducing the need for it outside medical necessity.
But to humour you, if abortion were to be made illegal tomorrow then by the next day there would be many dead women. Is that a clear enough response ?

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

reply to post by Tidnabnilims



...I like you. Haha.

But yes i agree, education is definitely the best route. Its just illogical to think society should ban the procedure with the expectation that men and women's sexual urges will tow the line.
Whether people like it or not, it is legal. No one's asking society to like it, no one's encouraging women to purposely get one, this is just how it is and until we start drilling it into people that they need to be more careful, the procedure will remain common.