The Abortion Question

[GMDino]

(10-08-2015, 01:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: The answer is: Its the decision of the woman.

(10-08-2015, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Read the question posed more slowly and then tell me how that is the answer.

(10-08-2015, 01:07 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Ok, pro-lifers........you are a 24 year old woman who is brutally gang raped in downtown Chicago.  You become pregnant because of said act. Are you keeping that baby?   

(10-08-2015, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would like to think I would keep the baby; however, you are asking a question I'm not sure that anyone that hasn't experienced the trama could answer.

Like I said: The answer is it is the woman's choice.

Try reading the answer a little slower. You'll figure it out.

Solid post though.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 04:21 PM)GMDino Wrote:




Like I said:  The answer is it is the woman's choice.

Try reading the answer a little slower.  You'll figure it out.

Solid post though.

Now bold the part of the hypothetical situation that states you are a 24 year old woman and read again more slowly.

OK, done? As you see after reading it again more slowly you will see the hypothetical asks, what would you as the woman would do?

Now tell me if "It's the woman's choice" is really answering anything. Basically your "answer" to the hypothetical question is "I would make a decision."

Not sure if that qualifies as "Alan Iverson".  

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is my problem with all of this, and the crux of my position, really. Why do some think, in this instance, that the mother does not take the child? That the mother does not have the best interests of the child at heart? As misguided as we may see them, why do some think that she is just completely disregarding the life inside of her? Why does the government, in this situation, know better than the people actually involved?

Each situation is different to a level that there is no law that could ever come close to taking into account every eventuality. It is not the place of the government to make that call. I want to decrease abortions so this topic becomes almost irrelavent. I want to increase education and access to family planning so that unwanted pregnancies become a thing of the past and the only ones we have to talk about are the exceptions that many make for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. But making a federal law to criminalize abortion is big government, it is infringing on the rights of the mothers, it would not likely be very effective in lowering the frequency at which abortions occur, and it would likely increase the frequency of deaths among pregnant women.

Well thought out.

I wonder if those opposed to Big Government in this situation feel the same with Gun Control. (Stricter controls)

I disagree with the assertion that making abortion not a legal option would not reduce the number of abortions

[GMDino]

(10-08-2015, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now bold the part of the hypothetical situation that states you are a 24 year old woman and read again more slowly.

OK, done? As you see after reading it again more slowly you will see the hypothetical asks, what would you as the woman would do?

Now tell me if "It's the woman's choice" is really answering anything. Basically your "answer" to the hypothetical question is "I would make a decision."

Not sure if that qualifies as "Alan Iverson".  

Awww...you still don't see it.

You said you couldn't say because you are not the woman in the hypothetical.  That means the woman makes the decision. See? You admit you could not make the decision as you have never been through it...so its up to the person in the situation. Not you.

Very solid answer by you though.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 05:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Awww...you still don't see it.

You said you couldn't say because you are not the woman in the hypothetical.  That means the woman makes the decision.  See?  You admit you could not make the decision as you have never been through it...so its up to the person in the situation.  Not you.

Very solid answer by you though.  

I gave what I felt my answer (decision) as the woman would be. I also said, I cannot be certain of this answer. Folks can read. Well, most anyway.

Hell one of your partners in crime understood that I answered it. He even called "bullshit" on it.

I just didn't give "the answer" by not answering anything. Common theme I have witnessed.

Let's try this:

Someone looking for an answer: "Dino imagine you are a woman that has been brutally raped; would you keep the baby?"
Dino: "I would make a decision"

We've tried reading slow; unfortunately, that was no help. See if you can get a coworker to read it and explain it to you.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2015, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wonder if those opposed to Big Government in this situation feel the same with Gun Control. (Stricter controls)

A couple of ways to approach this. One, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sometimes referred to as property) shall not be infringed upon. That's the wording we're used to. The right to bear arms is not within that and it is listed as being due to a well regulated militia being necessary. I said in another thread, the rights to life and liberty are not necessarily on the same level as the right to bear arms.

That being said, I'm not really in favor of federal firearms regulations, either. The reason I don't often talk in depth about my position on these laws is because I haven't come to my conclusion on it. I would like to see a more educated public and a better background check system, but the federal government controlling it is concerning to me in a number of ways.

(10-08-2015, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I disagree with the assertion that making abortion not a legal option would not reduce the number of abortions

I think it would reduce them to an extent because many of these women would not wish to break the law. However we would never rid ourselves of abortions because, just as in the days before Roe v. Wade, we would see black market abortions, abortion tourism, and home methods. All of which have a much higher for the mother. Already the access to abortion providers is minimal and we still see numbers that are too high. Making it illegal will cause those numbers to decrease, especially officially, but the actual decrease will not be nearly as significant because of all those that will go on unreported.

Abortions due to unwanted pregnancies are a symptom of a greater problem. As with anything, attacking the symptom doesn't actually get to the root of the problem and is not very effective. Roe v. Wade is here and so abortion is going to remain legal for the foreseeable future. Instead of wasting time and energy arguing about the symptom, let's use that time and energy to attack the cause of it all.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-08-2015, 05:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Instead of wasting time and energy arguing about the symptom, let's use that time and energy to attack the cause of it all.

You're spot on here.  Unfortunately the way I see it, the Pro-Lifers pointing out all methods to prevent pregnancies (birth control, IUD, profo's) as a rationale against abortion are the same people who want to defund programs that make them more widely available to higher-risk segments of society.

Honestly starting to believe it all comes down to people who believe we should all procreate with no abandon vs those who think the world is over populated as it is.

[West Union KennyG]

(09-26-2015, 05:52 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: When does life begin?


This seems to be the most widely debated question when it comes to abortion. Most pro-life people say conception, while pro-choice opinion tends to vary widely.  So my question to all of you is; When does the right to life of the baby outweigh the right to choice of the woman? At conception? When the heart starts beating? When the brain begins developing? Or never?

It doesn't really matter what anyone says, it's a scientific fact a unique human life is formed at conception.  Your question seems to be, "At what stage of life should it be protected?"  I believe it should be protected from conception - and we should not refuse protection to a U.S. citizen based on size or location.  It's really the only consistent position.  We give protected status to eggs of endangered animals, but not unborn human beings - that's certainly inconsistent right there!

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2015, 06:21 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: It doesn't really matter what anyone says, it's a scientific fact a unique human life is formed at conception.  Your question seems to be, "At what stage of life should it be protected?"  I believe it should be protected from conception - and we should not refuse protection to a U.S. citizen based on size or location.  It's really the only consistent position.  We give protected status to eggs of endangered animals, but not unborn human beings - that's certainly inconsistent right there!

If only humans were an endangered species!

I'm just trying to lighten the mood around here a little.

[West Union KennyG]

(10-08-2015, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I disagree with the assertion that making abortion not a legal option would not reduce the number of abortions

Well, then do a little research with statistics from The National Center of Health Statistics on maternal deaths due to abortion, take into consideration when we started using penicillin, and see what those stats look like before 1973 (Roe v Wade) and after.  This doesn't have to be a theoretical conversation, the stats don't show the difference all those who sold the lie about mass coat hanger abortions apparently made up in order to advance their position culturally and legally.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2015, 06:38 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: Well, then do a little research with statistics from The National Center of Health Statistics on maternal deaths due to abortion, take into consideration when we started using penicillin, and see what those stats look like before 1973 (Roe v Wade) and after.  This doesn't have to be a theoretical conversation, the stats don't show the difference all those who sold the lie about mass coat hanger abortions apparently made up in order to advance their position culturally and legally.

Except as we discussed in a thread before about this type of topic, numbers like that are extremely unreliable when discussing illicit procedures being performed.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 06:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except as we discussed in a thread before about this type of topic, numbers like that are extremely unreliable when discussing illicit procedures being performed.

Not to mention trying to obtain facts prior to Roe v. Wade. 

[West Union KennyG]

(10-08-2015, 06:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except as we discussed in a thread before about this type of topic, numbers like that are extremely unreliable when discussing illicit procedures being performed.

(10-08-2015, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to mention trying to obtain facts prior to Roe v. Wade. 

if those stats are contrary to your position, that sure makes it hard to back your position other than just saying, "well that's what I've heard," right?  There's even some quotes on statistics prior to Roe v. Wade used in arguing that very case to The Supreme Court, in which the original source has since admitted he made up the statistics.  I wouldn't recommend whoever is using that kind of emotional blackmail kind of argument without having at least some kind of way to back it up, and all the verifiable evidence showing the opposite of that claim - just some advice.  Carry on!

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-08-2015, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who are you to condone a death sentence to a child that she was a willing participant in creating?

Who are you to repeatedly call a zygote that is less intelligent and complex than a shrimp a "child"?

Thanks for proving my point about rhetorical tricks every single time you post your drivel.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-08-2015, 01:07 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Ok, pro-lifers........you are a 24 year old woman who is brutally gang raped in downtown Chicago.  You become pregnant because of said act. Are you keeping that baby?   

Why wouldn't you take the morning after pill immediately to prevent any pregnancy? Seems standard if your raped .

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 08:23 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Who are you to repeatedly call a zygote that is less intelligent and complex than a shrimp a "child"?

Thanks for proving my point about rhetorical tricks every single time you post your drivel.

Yes, me with the rhetorical tricks and drivel.

How long is an unborn child a zygote? It must be a significant amount of time because you keep referring to the child in that stage and you have repeatedly stated how much you detest rhetoric and drivel. I wonder how many elective abortions occur while the child is in this prolonged zygote stage.

[StLucieBengal]

This is exactly why each state should be able to set their own standards and whether or not abortions are legal or illegal.

They should be forced to notify all minors parents . Do this procedure In a hospital.
And with counseling provided before and after the Procedure.
Discuss adoption options and even let them look at or meet potential parents.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2015, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just didn't give "the answer" by not answering anything. Common theme I have witnessed.

I'm so sorry you don't understand.

Solid attempt though.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-08-2015, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, me with the rhetorical tricks and drivel.

*proceeds with more rhetorical tricks and drivel*

Not playing your game anymore, pal. You'll have to strawman somebody else. Just know that every single time you call "abortion" the "killing" of a "child", I'm going to add the same correction right behind it until you stop misinforming people.

P.S., I think it's hilarious that breech caught you citing a pro-life website when you claimed you hadn't. It all goes back to what I've told you repeatedly: you need to get better at reading if you're gonna debate people.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-08-2015, 09:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why wouldn't you take the morning after pill immediately to prevent any pregnancy?   Seems standard if your raped .

Why do you assume the victim can afford Plan B? Why do you assume it is readily available in their area? Why do you assume everyone can safely take Plan B?