Abortion......I will now use my psychic powers to predict the most popular.... - Page 2

Lorizael · May 17, 2003, 21:54

I thought for sure the pill helped to regulate your hormones.

MRT144 · May 17, 2003, 21:54

the problem with teaching abstinence is its just covering your ears and closing your eyes and shouting at the problem, not actually helping it.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
If you dont have self control, your an animal, and deserve to be treated as one......

We are all animals. We all act on emotion. If we were not as such, we would have no crimes of passion, or such like.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
the problem with that line of reasoning is that you entirley forgot the fact that the result of that iresponsability may en up with a murder(abortion), which is one HECK of an imposment on another pe rson-so your wrong.

I don't see abortion as murder. The women has the right to withdraw her services from that child. If the foetus can survive without the mother, then let it, if not, then it will die. It does not need to be actively killed. It is like passive euthanasia, withholding medicine that might prolong life.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
They should be DAMN sure to use the pill regularly.

As addressed to JW above, but also, what happens on one of the few occasions when it doesn't work?

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

Which also completely messes up hormones, and chas many side effects. I would never force anyone to take medication, unless they were seriously mentally ill.

Its one of three options. I'm not forcing anything. You have the option of not having sex, using the pill (or the patch, or any of the dozens of birth control methods) or carrying the baby to term.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:01

I agree, that is the choice, however I consider Abortion a birth control method. I am the only person I know who doesn't believe in the sanctity of life. Thus I'm pro-choice, pro-euthanasia (when the patient wishes it), pro-cloning human embryo's for research, and when it is safe enough not to cause lasting harm, pro-cloning for those that wish children of their own flesh and blood but cannot have them normally.

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
As addressed to JW above, but also, what happens on one of the few occasions when it doesn't work?

That's why you have the first 3 months to make a decision. (13 weeks is when the woman usually notices)

Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm not altogether PL before.

MRT144 · May 17, 2003, 22:01

what if some of those options fail. what if you have sex against your will? what if birth control fails? what if the baby poses a health risk if carried to term?

Lorizael · May 17, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
the problem with teaching abstinence is its just covering your ears and closing your eyes and shouting at the problem, not actually helping it.

If you could actually teach children abstinence, and have them really learn it and apply it, the problem really would just go away.

But in addition to teaching that, it should also be taught that if you really absolutely need to have sex, you should use condoms, take pills, or patches, or whatever is necessary to make sure you don't create a life where a life should not be.

And condoms, pills, and patches should all be free.

There is still a situation where all the education in the world, no matter how good it is, won't help. And that's rape. You can't tell the raped lady, "Well ya just shouldn't have had sex!"

Creating life by way of an act of violence is the worst possible thing. And remember, if a woman is raped, the father's not likely to stick around.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
I thought for sure the pill helped to regulate your hormones.

It can do, for some people who's fluctuate before, but that shows it can affect it. It has many side effects too.

Vesayen · May 17, 2003, 22:03

"We are all animals. We all act on emotion. If we were not as such, we would have no crimes of passion, or such like."

However that isnt an exscuse......

BTW I want to make it VERY clear that I 100% support teaching abistance but ALSO "safe" sex(I just think doing it is a bad idea)-I dont think if I stick my head in the sand and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU! LALLALALA!" that the problem will go away-and believe it or not, I am NOT a Roman Catholic!

"I don't see abortion as murder. The women has the right to withdraw her services from that child."

Well I see that your wrong lol

"If the foetus can survive without the mother, then let it, if not, then it will die."

Chomatos victims, vegitables, the mentally ill cant survive without help... kill them all? Young children cant survive without almost constant care-hell YOU cant live without societies help.... saying when one is "indipendant" they are a life is rediculous because no one is ever "truly" self-dependant.

"It does not need to be actively killed. It is like passive euthanasia, withholding medicine that might prolong life."

I put a landmine under your doormat and leave...... you walk on it and it explodes..... but im not responsible, afterall I didnt DO something to kill you, inaction(me not warning you) did it!

Can you see the rediculous logic in this? Murder is murder, whether through action, or inaction.

"People should use protection, Vesayen, but no form of protection (save abstinence) is perfect."

Thats why I say be abstinant till you find the one...... but if you havent found the one-you better use protection heh!

"Should a child be forced into an environment with very poor conditions simply because of an accident? The creation of life shouldn't be able to happen because a piece of latex tears."

Can ANYONE decide "Is this persons life worth living?" I know I would rather exist with a shity life then not....... Your also assuming all people who are the result of unwanted pregnancies have terrible lives-I really doubt thats the case....

"Obviously, abstinence until a stable, child friendly environment is in place would be the best possible situation, but to only teach abstinence will lead to a lot of sex without any protection."

Thats why you teach both, and hope people make the right choice..... im NOT saying just teach abstinance, thats nuts... teach abistance but teach "safe" sex also.... however make the potential consequences very clear(like our education system does now) and if someone decides to make that risk, they should be held responsible for that decision.... i.e. no abortions.

If you gamble at a roulet table and loose your life savings on one turn, you cant say "Oh I change my mind"-the decision was already made.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

Which also completely messes up hormones, and chas many side effects. I would never force anyone to take medication, unless they were seriously mentally ill.

So you would support putting someone in a position to commit murder, over the above side effects(which are invented... I've never heard such things).

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
what if some of those options fail. what if you have sex against your will? what if birth control fails? what if the baby poses a health risk if carried to term?

Maybe it was a crosspost, but see my post right above yours. If the baby poses a health risk, I prefer the life of a person over the life of a quasi-person. Abortion is perfectly acceptable to me in that situation. If you have sex against your will, you can usually get a "morning after" pill. That is also perfectly acceptable to me.

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:13

BTW, I was an accidental baby.

Lincoln · May 17, 2003, 22:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

I don't see abortion as murder. The women has the right to withdraw her services from that child. If the foetus can survive without the mother, then let it, if not, then it will die. It does not need to be actively killed. It is like passive euthanasia, withholding medicine that might prolong life.

Can the woman also "withdraw here services" once the child is born? Would it be OK if she just let the child die and did not feed her? Can a captain of a ship "withdraw his services" to his passengers? Can he just let them all die and let the ship go into the rock if he choses?

Worthingtons · May 17, 2003, 22:21

wtf is this jerk on about??
Have you ever actually been in the situation where you are about to father/mother a child?? My guess is probably not.

Abortion can be the result of one not exercising self control, that much is true - but then nevertheless the baby is not planned, why bring another UNWANTED baby into an already overpopulated world?? Is that Fair?

And dont forget some protection doesnt always work, never had a condom split on before???
And the Pill, well do you not realise that if often fails if the female is suffering from a cold or simular condition.

Maybe one day when you get yourself gf/wife and suddenly find yourself in a posistion of expecting a baby which you cannot afford, do not want and know you are not capable of looking after you will understand. Until then, Shut the **** up and take your moral rantings elsewhere.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
However that isnt an exscuse......

An excuse for what? We are animals, we have impulses, that is what we are. Having impulses is a pretty good reason to act upon them IMHO. It is part of what makes us alive, and what makes us human.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
"I don't see abortion as murder. The women has the right to withdraw her services from that child."

Well I see that your wrong lol

With a lot of reasoning behind it. Do you think the women should be forced to care for a child after birth? If not, then why do you think she should be force to care for her before birth? That is givign more rights to the foetus than a live baby.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
"If the foetus can survive without the mother, then let it, if not, then it will die."

Chomatos victims, vegitables, the mentally ill cant survive without help... kill them all? Young children cant survive without almost constant care-hell YOU cant live without societies help.... saying when one is "indipendant" they are a life is rediculous because no one is ever "truly" self-dependant.

Not kill them all, but the choice of whether to keep them alive falls to their next of kin. Also, they are kept alive by machines. If they were having to be kept alive by a person, that person can decide to withdraw their services, should they want to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
"It does not need to be actively killed. It is like passive euthanasia, withholding medicine that might prolong life."

I put a landmine under your doormat and leave...... you walk on it and it explodes..... but im not responsible, afterall I didnt DO something to kill you, inaction(me not warning you) did it!

No, because you put the mine there, your inaction didn't kill me, your action did. That analogy would work if someone else put it there, and you knew but didn't tell me. Which is questionable, but not illegal. However, for that to work you would also have to be the person that gave me life in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
Can you see the rediculous logic in this? Murder is murder, whether through action, or inaction.

No. Is a person responsible for murder if they don't tell someone that they are about to run in front of a car? Is a doctor responsible for murder if he is on a break, and so doesn't treat a patient, and that patient dies? Yes, they could help, but they are not obliged too. They maybe are negligent, but they are not murderers, they did not actually cause that persons death, they just didn't prevent it.

Would you try for murder a person who refused to help a women dying because she had had an abortion in a back alley? They did not kill her, but they did not help when they could have, so they must be liable!

Is a government liable when it does not provide a drug that could save lives on it's free health service? It could help, but it decided to spend the money on something else.

Now you see the difference between killing and not helping, the difference between passive and active euthanasia?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
Can ANYONE decide "Is this persons life worth living?" I know I would rather exist with a shity life then not....... Your also assuming all people who are the result of unwanted pregnancies have terrible lives-I really doubt thats the case....

However the suicide rate would seem to suggest that many lives aren't worth living. How can we presume that theirs is? We cannot presume either way.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
So you would support putting someone in a position to commit murder, over the above side effects(which are invented... I've never heard such things).

Really? A drug powerful enough to prevent conception has no side effects? And as I have said, I don't see it as murder on 2 counts:
1 - I don't think the foetus is alive and
2 - I don't see it as killing, I see it as removing the support. The mother has no obligation to support that child.

Lincoln · May 17, 2003, 22:26

"why bring another UNWANTED baby into an already overpopulated world?? Is that Fair?"

Is it "fair" to make the choice for the child? Many unwanted people have made very substantial contributions to society. Why would you assume that they should be killed anyway?

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
1 - I don't think the foetus is alive

Short question:

Does it somehow magically become alive when it pops out? What does its location have to do with its level of "human-ness"?

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Can the woman also "withdraw here services" once the child is born? Would it be OK if she just let the child die and did not feed her?

Yes, which is why we have social services and adoption agencies, to prevent the childs death. If the mother feels she cannot cope, giving up the baby could be the best option.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Can a captain of a ship "withdraw his services" to his passengers? Can he just let them all die and let the ship go into the rock if he choses?

No, he has signed a contract to say he will carry those passengers, and they have paid for it. He is probably able to take them back to shore and refund their money, thus withdrawing his services, however he cannot breach any contract he has signed.

Lincoln · May 17, 2003, 22:32

Whether he has signed a contract or not he cannot kill them by neglect.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
"why bring another UNWANTED baby into an already overpopulated world?? Is that Fair?"

Is it "fair" to make the choice for the child? Many unwanted people have made very substantial contributions to society. Why would you assume that they should be killed anyway?

We are not assuming that. We are assuming that it is the mother, as the next of kin's, choice. Like if a person is unconscious on life support, it is the next of kin's choice if the life support is turned off.

Quote:

Does it somehow magically become alive when it pops out? What does its location have to do with its level of "human-ness"?

If I was forced to choose, I would say when it is able to live outside the womb. As the law currently is in the UK IIRC.

Lorizael · May 17, 2003, 22:36

What we need is a time machine. Every time a child is conceived, go into the future - to that person's death - and see if they regret their life. If they do, then abort them. If not, let 'em live.

And screw causality problems. Get to asking almost aborted children if they regret their lives.

That's it, enough Apolyton for me, time to get back to my writing.

*sounds of whips in the background*

at self.

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Whether he has signed a contract or not he cannot kill them by neglect.

Yup.

Drogue, the best way to argue that one is to use the "fetus isn't a person" argument again.

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:38

OK, leaving this thread now. Good luck to all in your debating.

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Whether he has signed a contract or not he cannot kill them by neglect.

If he is still alive. The way I see that is if he drives it into a rock, he is liable, however if he hit the rock by accident, then he is not liable.

However that is not withdrawing his services. If he was not contracted, he is perfectly legally allowed to quit, and withdraw his services.

Jaguar · May 17, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

If he is still alive. The way I see that is if he drives it into a rock, he is liable, however if he hit the rock by accident, then he is not liable.

However that is not withdrawing his services. If he was not contracted, he is perfectly legally allowed to quit, and withdraw his services.

So what if a guy offers to take you deep sea fishing, and never promises not to abandon you. Does that give him the right to abandon you in the middle of the ocean?

It was too easy, I had to come back for just this one post.

Now, self, you have to work so you can meet the monday deadline, dammit!

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Drogue, the best way to argue that one is to use the "fetus isn't a person" argument again.

I prefer to only use that as a last resort, as it is a point of contention. I have been known to answer that even if I really didn't care whether it is or not, I would still be pro-choice. Without the foetus being able to articulate it's wishes, it falls to the next of kin, the mother. Also, I don't see that much of a difference between an abortion and the morning after pill. Both do the same job, both after sex.

Lincoln · May 17, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

If he is still alive. The way I see that is if he drives it into a rock, he is liable, however if he hit the rock by accident, then he is not liable.

However that is not withdrawing his services. If he was not contracted, he is perfectly legally allowed to quit, and withdraw his services.

Of course the willful aborting of a pregnancy is no accident...

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
So what if a guy offers to take you deep sea fishing, and never promises not to abandon you. Does that give him the right to abandon you in the middle of the ocean?

In the middle of the ocean? In the boat I presume. Well, yes he probably does. Like if you go to the cinema with somebody, but fall out with them while you are there, and walk off before taking them back. You have broken no law, although probably lost a friend. It is the same, albeit less extreme.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Now, self, you have to work so you can meet the monday deadline, dammit!

No the feeling, with me, it's more "Sleep

" I hate having to go out after all nighters

Drogue · May 17, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course the willful aborting of a pregnancy is no accident...

True, but read the 2nd part opf that answer. The first answered your question, but did not relate to abortion. The 2nd was relating it to abortion, and the withdrawl of services. Crashing, even as an accident, is not necessarily a withdrawl of services.

Quote:

If he was not contracted, he is perfectly legally allowed to quit, and withdraw his services.

So is the women. She is allowed to quit and withdraw her services, as it should be IMHO. If the foetus can survive ourside, then it survives outside, if not, then it is never alive.

Kirnwaffen · May 17, 2003, 22:57

The boat analogy isn't doing much for me. Breaks down too early. You'd probably do better using the life support analogy.