Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-02-06 12:19:31
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

With state owned hospitals you don't get this problem.....

I am fiercely opposed to the over the top stigma attached to abortions. Yes, they are something unpleasant. It is typically going to be a very painful decision for any woman to make. The ludicrous hype surrounding it, particularly in some countries, is appalling and almost mediaeval.

When religious organisations start doing things that impact directly on policies of state, it's time to put them back in their place. Their backwards view of the world might not have moved on, but the world around them certainly has. It is comparable to things like the Taliban regime that was in place in Afghanistan (nowhere near being on the same level of being out of touch with the modern world, but the concept holds true).
2009-02-06 14:17:32
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Bertster7 wrote:

The ludicrous hype surrounding it, particularly in some countries, is appalling and almost mediaeval.
Destroying the fabric of existence out of convience sounds like a much more medieval concept to me.
2009-02-06 18:14:09
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6749|The Land of Scott Walker

Bertster7 wrote:

When religious organisations start doing things that impact directly on policies of state, it's time to put them back in their place. Their backwards view of the world might not have moved on, but the world around them certainly has.
Oh yes I'm backwards because I happen to believe that, once pregnant, a mother should carry the child to term.  Slaughtering one's own offspring out of convenience because one did not use birth control or contraceptive is faaaaar more advanced.
2009-02-06 18:23:20
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6594|Éire

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

When religious organisations start doing things that impact directly on policies of state, it's time to put them back in their place. Their backwards view of the world might not have moved on, but the world around them certainly has.
Oh yes I'm backwards because I happen to believe that, once pregnant, a mother should carry the child to term.  Slaughtering one's own offspring out of convenience because one did not use birth control or contraceptive is faaaaar more advanced.
I'm willing to bet there are plenty of women out there who don't find being raped very convenient.
2009-02-06 18:37:02
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6683|MN

Zefar wrote:

Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.
Sounds like a whole lot of selfishness if you ask me.  Killing a developing child for the parents convienence is never ok.  Adoption is always an option.  Do you know how many families are waiting to adopt these children?   

Zefar wrote:

Btw people if you are against abortion you should adopt a baby/kid because otherwise you would be no worse than the mother. Just leaving those kids there.

Why? Well maybe because if you care so much about life you should try to make the world a better place for those who don't have a mom.
I have adopted and I am trying to pay off that adoption so I can adopt again.  I am trying to make the world a better place for these children.

Braddock wrote:

I'm willing to bet there are plenty of women out there who don't find being raped very convenient.
"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-02-06 18:43:45
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6594|Éire

LividBovine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'm willing to bet there are plenty of women out there who don't find being raped very convenient.
"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
That 7% makes the choice a necessity in my book... that may seem ridiculous to you but it's their womb and who is anyone to tell them how to use it after all they may have suffered up the point of their decision? I may be pro-choice but that does not mean I'm pro-abortion, I have a friend who decided to keep her child despite being raped and her kid is a lovely little girl now, I just believe a woman is entitled to make her own decision.

I completely disagree with abortion as a form of retroactive contraceptive, sadly it is a side effect of having choice and must be tolerated.
2009-02-06 18:46:13
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6683|MN
93% kill ratio is ok with you?  Are you serious?  How is it ok to kill 93% of them so you don't have to inconvienece 7% with bringing a child to term so they can be adopted?  I am truely baffled.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-02-06 19:21:22
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6985|Disaster Free Zone

LividBovine wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.
Sounds like a whole lot of selfishness if you ask me.  Killing a developing child for the parents convienence is never ok.  Adoption is always an option.  Do you know how many families are waiting to adopt these children?
Forcing a woman to go through 9 months of potential pain and suffering and then to give birth to a child she doesn't want nor probably can afford to raise seem pretty selfish to me. Forcing the kid to be brought up in potential poverty and/or to parents who don't want them seem pretty selfish to me also.

LividBovine wrote:

93% kill ratio is ok with you?  Are you serious?  How is it ok to kill 93% of them so you don't have to inconvienece 7% with bringing a child to term so they can be adopted?  I am truely baffled.
100% would be fine with me.

One third (33%) of all pregnancies end in natural abortion (miscarriage) for various (usually medical) reasons, why can't humans induce abortions for social reasons then?
2009-02-06 19:31:27
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6683|MN

DrunkFace wrote:

Forcing a woman to go through 9 months of potential pain and suffering and then to give birth to a child she doesn't want nor probably can afford to raise seem pretty selfish to me. Forcing the kid to be brought up in potential poverty and/or to parents who don't want them seem pretty selfish to me also.
How did these women get pregnant again?  Oh yeah, they had sex.  You know the risks, you accept the consequences, period.

Why is adoption not an option to eliminate the unwanted issue.  How is finances an issue?  The pregnancies can be covered by the adopting family as well.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-02-06 20:11:35
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6988|United States of America
The whole issue of abortion is madness, anyway. There's no quicker way to divide a room into two groups than bringing up this issue. I, personally, don't give a damn what they do and will only have to make a decision either way if somehow my girlfriend/wife etc. is in this predicament. It is disgusting that some people are so irresponsible that they will throw away a human life because they were too stupid to prevent it (talking about the idiots who use it as birth control) but then again, I don't get the "babies are little bundles of joy" side of it either (they're fat, ugly, and annoying).
2009-02-06 21:00:41
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX
I hearby declare this unwinnable argument #6.

10 arguments

Can we consider this agument  having already been fought, and both sides thrown their hands up in frustration at the idiocy an stubborness of the opposing side to the the irrefutable logic of our own positions?
2009-02-06 22:42:42
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6985|Disaster Free Zone

LividBovine wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Forcing a woman to go through 9 months of potential pain and suffering and then to give birth to a child she doesn't want nor probably can afford to raise seem pretty selfish to me. Forcing the kid to be brought up in potential poverty and/or to parents who don't want them seem pretty selfish to me also.
How did these women get pregnant again?  Oh yeah, they had sex.  You know the risks, you accept the consequences, period.
Yeh, they have to go to a hospital have what is basically a vacuum cleaner shoved up their vagina into their uterus to suck out all blood and guts of a embryo or fetus plus the uterus wall lining. Sounds fun doesn't it? I'm sure all the women are just lining up to have this done.
2009-02-06 23:11:07
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6683|MN

DrunkFace wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Forcing a woman to go through 9 months of potential pain and suffering and then to give birth to a child she doesn't want nor probably can afford to raise seem pretty selfish to me. Forcing the kid to be brought up in potential poverty and/or to parents who don't want them seem pretty selfish to me also.
How did these women get pregnant again?  Oh yeah, they had sex.  You know the risks, you accept the consequences, period.
Yeh, they have to go to a hospital have what is basically a vacuum cleaner shoved up their vagina into their uterus to suck out all blood and guts of a embryo or fetus plus the uterus wall lining. Sounds fun doesn't it? I'm sure all the women are just lining up to have this done.
Huh?  Not sure what your getting at here.  BTW this procedure is done during miscarriages as well.  It's called a D&C.  My wife had one done when her second pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-02-07 08:07:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

When religious organisations start doing things that impact directly on policies of state, it's time to put them back in their place. Their backwards view of the world might not have moved on, but the world around them certainly has.
Oh yes I'm backwards because I happen to believe that, once pregnant, a mother should carry the child to term.  Slaughtering one's own offspring out of convenience because one did not use birth control or contraceptive is faaaaar more advanced.
The word is progressive, more progressive, not more advanced - but it amounts to practically the same thing.

Other than that - spot on.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-07 08:08:12)

2009-02-07 12:47:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The ludicrous hype surrounding it, particularly in some countries, is appalling and almost mediaeval.
Destroying the fabric of existence out of convience sounds like a much more medieval concept to me.
The protests of the pro-life movement would ring less hollow if more of them actually supported more spending in social programs.

Until you can convince most of the anti-choice Republicans to own up to the consequences that an abortion ban would cause, the pro-life movement will mostly be a moral-mongering crusade with no economic realism.

More efforts should be made to accommodate the bleak economic repercussions of banning abortion.  Without that policy comprehension involved, I really can't support the pro-lifers.
2009-02-07 15:28:29
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Turquoise wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The ludicrous hype surrounding it, particularly in some countries, is appalling and almost mediaeval.
Destroying the fabric of existence out of convience sounds like a much more medieval concept to me.
The protests of the pro-life movement would ring less hollow if more of them actually supported more spending in social programs.

Until you can convince most of the anti-choice Republicans to own up to the consequences that an abortion ban would cause, the pro-life movement will mostly be a moral-mongering crusade with no economic realism.

More efforts should be made to accommodate the bleak economic repercussions of banning abortion.  Without that policy comprehension involved, I really can't support the pro-lifers.
Too bad repubs are the ones usually against social institutions huh. It doesn't matter anyway. It's too ingrained in our society as a right that nothing will ever change, especially combined with the decline of religion in todays youth. Not that you need to be religious to be against abortion, but I don't see too many pro-life aethists these days.

It doesn't matter to me though. I'll still always feel the way I do, even if nothing ever changes.

An honestly Bert, the best ways to get your point across don't involve insulting an entire demographic. Just makes you look like an ass.
2009-02-07 16:15:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:


Destroying the fabric of existence out of convience sounds like a much more medieval concept to me.
The protests of the pro-life movement would ring less hollow if more of them actually supported more spending in social programs.

Until you can convince most of the anti-choice Republicans to own up to the consequences that an abortion ban would cause, the pro-life movement will mostly be a moral-mongering crusade with no economic realism.

More efforts should be made to accommodate the bleak economic repercussions of banning abortion.  Without that policy comprehension involved, I really can't support the pro-lifers.
Too bad repubs are the ones usually against social institutions huh. It doesn't matter anyway. It's too ingrained in our society as a right that nothing will ever change, especially combined with the decline of religion in todays youth. Not that you need to be religious to be against abortion, but I don't see too many pro-life aethists these days.

It doesn't matter to me though. I'll still always feel the way I do, even if nothing ever changes.

An honestly Bert, the best ways to get your point across don't involve insulting an entire demographic. Just makes you look like an ass.
Bert's observation was accurate though.  Consider how much more progressive the results of the pro-life movement would be if they spent less time demonizing abortionists and more time addressing the root causes of abortion.

Some pro-life groups do this, and I respect them, but they don't seem to make up the majority of that movement.

The point is...  the abortion debate goes nowhere because we aren't willing to look into the economics of the situation.  If we spent more time doing that and less time with emotional/religious bullshit, we'd probably have a better compromise position in between the 2 extremes.  We'd probably also have a lot less abortion occurring.

I'm atheist and pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I like abortion.  To me, it's a necessary evil that would be less necessary with more comprehensive social programs and a better adoption system.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard