divineseraph's sig (split from another topic) abortion time!

[mahjqa]

Not wanting to muck up another thread with offtopic discussion, I've opened this thread to say a few things of my own.

And yes, there's plenty of other abortion debates. I fully realize that, and I'd also like to say that abortion is, in all cases a terrible thing. It's for cases that should not have happened. Every single case should be considered and decided about by the people involved. And you keep your prying little nose out of it.

divineseraph

LittlePinky82

And on another topic I as a pro-choice woman without children find your signature very insulting. I'm pro-choice because I believe in free will. Not because I have no children (I'm too young).

the signature does not make fun of women without children, it makes fun of the double-standard between men who choose to be childfree by running off, and women who choose to be childfree by killing their offspring.

I like the premise, but I think it's not really comparable. In the case of the deadbeat dad, there's a kid on the world that has no support of one of his parents who was responsible for him/her. This is bad. In the second case there is no kid.

And for another thing... you see that with the two-sided debate one side is called pro-life, and the other one is called pro-choice. Not pro-death. 'kay? Nobody's proposing to kill all babies. We're just saying that it's none of your business to decide about other people's lives.

Quote:

and here is something to think about- if you truly respect free will, you shuld be for the killing of born humans. who are you to say they can't?

Well, most people seem to agree that the freedom of one person to do whatever they want ends where somebody else's freedom starts. Put in laymen's terms; don't harm other folks, 'cuz you don't want to be hurt yourself.

Quote:

and who is to say they matter in the first place? it is all based on morality, after all. a nihilist would say that nobody really exists at all, so killing them would be equal to taking a breath or kicking a clod of dirt. nihilistic morals would find murdder acceptable. who are you to override their morals, and their free will?

Well, even so, most folks seem to be against killing. As they seem to be the majority, we ruled it out. Apart from that death sentence thing, but that's a whole 'nother can of beans we'll leave closed for now.

'BUT!' you say, 'you're killing a human being!'

Hardly. It's a potential human being, I'll give you that. Just like sperm. Or an ovum. Actually, one could argue that menstruation is murder.

Question: Do you swat flies? Inadvertedly step on ants? Shed skin? After conception, your "human being" is just a bundle of cells without conscience or intelligent thought.  

[divineseraph]

funny. a fetus IS a human being. go ahead and look it up.

human being- a living human

human- any member of the genus homo, usually sapiens

living- having life

life-The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.


a fetus falls under every category.

the child is not potential, it already exists. it WILL grow, it WILL be born, should the mother not kill it. there are a few branch-off points here. one says that it cannot feel. so, should a born human be under anestasia, and thus be unable to feel, should it be legal to kill them? they won't feel anything, remember.

also, i have heard becuase they have little brain function at the time. two things for that one- if a person is in a coma, should it be legal to kill them in any way we see fit? tossing them off a rooftop, tearing their limbs off, hacking away with an axe? they're not people since they have no brain function at the time.

or how about one who is merely asleep? they have the POTENTIAL to wake up, but they're not consious right now. and don't say "well they'll wake up soon", a fetus will "wake up" soon.



and of course, if mcdonalds can't descriminate by age, location or mental status when HIRING, why should a doctor be able to with life?

Quote:

We're just saying that it's none of your business to decide about other people's lives.... Well, most people seem to agree that the freedom of one person to do whatever they want ends where somebody else's freedom starts. Put in laymen's terms; don't harm other folks, 'cuz you don't want to be hurt yourself.

so where are the child's rights? the child who was consensually created through known actions? 95% of abortions are elective- this means the woman was not raped and had no serious health risks. that chalks out to about 1.3 million abortions soley for the sake of convenience PER YEAR, in AMERICA ALONE.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

the child is not potential, it already exists. it WILL grow, it WILL be born, should the mother not kill it.

Not true, actually. Depending on the age of the mother, there is a 10-50% chance of a miscarriage [1], with women 15 to 35 having around an 11% chance of miscarrying. Additionally, many miscarriages happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant, meaning that the number of spontaneous abortions may be somewhat higher. So there's no guarantee that an unborn child will make it to full term.

I also feel compelled to point out that there is a crucial difference between a fetus's situation and that of a person who's asleep or in a coma: that is, a fetus is developing inside the body of another human being, i.e. the mother. And the mother-unborn relationship isn't always sunshine and lollipops, either. The nature of the embryo/fetus is parasitic, siphoning blood and nutrients from the mother's body, sometimes to significant negative effect. Take preeclempsia for example, in which, it is theorized, the trophoblastss attempted invasion of the mother's uterine arteries—the purpose of which is to increase the flow of blood to the placenta—is inadequate, leading to a negative immunological reaction in the mother that can lead to systemic high blood pressure. Or, conversely, too firm an attachment by the trophoblasts can lead to placenta accreta, which can result in hemorrhage, a hysterectomy, or death. And those are just two of many complications that can occur during pregnancy.
My point, then, is that pregnancy is frequently a difficult thing for a woman to go through; at its worst, the mother's needs and the child's need are at odds with one another. Given that, I don't believe I have a right to tell a pregnant woman who does not even want to have a child that she must sacrifice her bodily autonomy by carrying the thing to term. It's her body that will be nurturing—and perhaps suffering for—that child, and to say that she has no choice but to have the baby is to strip her of control of her own physical self.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

Not true, actually. Depending on the age of the mother, there is a 10-50% chance of a miscarriage [1], with women 15 to 35 having around an 11% chance of miscarrying. Additionally, many miscarriages happen before a woman even knows she's pregnant, meaning that the number of spontaneous abortions may be somewhat higher. So there's no guarantee that an unborn child will make it to full term.

And there's no guaruntee that you'll live to see tomorrow. That doesn't make it right to kill you.  

[divineseraph]

exactly. and a sleeping person, it could be argued, could suffer a stroke or heart attack under the right circumstances. might as well sanction THEIR deaths as well, since it IS possible that they could die anyway. and SOME sleeping people have a condition which causes them to "sleepfight", or act out violently in their sleep. they could hurt or even kill someone. better make it ok to kill ANY sleeping person, just in case. besides, who are you to tell the poor woman who CHOSE to take him off his medication for the night, she could get killed! respect HER bodliy integrity!  

[Tarrou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

And there's no guaruntee that you'll live to see tomorrow. That doesn't make it right to kill you.

That's not really the heart of my argument; I was merely correcting a false statement.

Now are you really going to make me explain, in detail, the obvious differences between an embryo/fetus and a sleeping person? I mean, you're not actually going to force me to deconstruct a reductio ad absurdum, are you?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

That's not really the heart of my argument; I was merely correcting a false statement.

And I was doing the same.

Quote:

Now are you really going to make me explain, in detail, the obvious differences between an embryo/fetus and a sleeping person? I mean, you're not actually going to force me to deconstruct a reductio ad absurdum, are you?

Yes. You made the bloody arguement that an 11% chance of death is enough cause to terminate a fetus, so you're gonna defend it.  

[Tarrou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

And I was doing the same.

No, no you were not. I made a statement of fact about spontaneous abortion, one that did not make any moral claims, regardless of whatever moral implications you may have read into it. You simply made a moral claim. The two are not equivalent.

Quote:

Yes. You made the bloody arguement that an 11% chance of death is enough cause to terminate a fetus, so you're gonna defend it.

I did not make that argument, actually. You are inferring that. I simply stated that divineseraph was incorrect in stating that a child will make it to term so long as the mother does not choose to have an induced abortion. That was not what I based my primary argument around (those points were contained in paragraphs two and three), and quite honestly I think you're bright enough that you should have realized that.
The confusion, however, is partly my fault. My second paragraph was directed at divineseraph, not at you. I am not using the prevalence of spontaneous abortion to make any argument at all. When I asked if I was going to have to address a reduction to absurdity, I was talking about seraph's last post in which he made a slightly incoherent reference to (and I'm sort of guessing here) what sounds like assisted suicide. I could be wrong about that, though, as the grammar of his last sentence made it a bit hard to divine its meaning.  

[divineseraph]

and some people sleeping will die spontaneously. it is the same thing. just depends on wether or not you believe in the "personhood fairy", the magical little creature who sprinkles life dust on babies once they are born to seperate them from the unborn.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

No, no you were not. I made a statement of fact about spontaneous abortion, one that did not make any moral claims, regardless of whatever moral implications you may have read into it. You simply made a moral claim. The two are not equivalent.

You directly made no moral claims, true. The claim was inferred due to the rest of your post. Besides, I'm not going to debate abortion with you. I'd probably lose and I know it. My only problem is with your use of that particular arguement.

Quote:

I did not make that argument, actually. You are inferring that. I simply stated that divineseraph was incorrect in stating that a child will make it to term so long as the mother does not choose to have an induced abortion. That was not what I based my primary argument around (those points were contained in paragraphs two and three), and quite honestly I think you're bright enough that you should have realized that.

I did, and, as I have said, I am not going to try and debate you with your primary arguement. I am singleing out that particular point that you made because I have seen it often and it annoys me.

Quote:

The confusion, however, is partly my fault. My second paragraph was directed at divineseraph, not at you. I am not using the prevalence of spontaneous abortion to make any argument at all. When I asked if I was going to have to address a reduction to absurdity, I was talking about seraph's last post in which he made a slightly incoherent reference to (and I'm sort of guessing here) what sounds like assisted suicide. I could be wrong about that, though, as the grammar of his last sentence made it a bit hard to divine its meaning.

Ah, ok. Sorry about getting mixed up, then.  

[Berezi]

What about the mother? One of my friends is a post-abortion counselor at a Pregnancy Life Care Center in the area, and she's worked with many women who have lowered self-esteems, are depressed and/or suicidal, and many other things as a result of the abortion they had had. This woman had one herself and tried to kill herself four times. I heard her and one other woman speak about their abortions, and I was moved to hear their stories. Needless to say I will never view abortion the same way again.

Not to mention, the doctors don't tell you about a lot of things involved with an abortion. They don't tell you you could become infertile, have psychological issues, etc. There is more told about getting a wisdom tooth removed than there is getting an abortion. You have a harder time getting a couple of asprin pills from your high school nurse than you do getting an abortion (a.k.a. in some states it can be done without parental consent).

If you go to www.afterabortion.org and click on research, you'll be directed to a bunch of things showing how abortions can hurt women.

Here's a snippet of it (in the psychological complications bit)

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)