Abortion is Wrong?

[Muravyets]

The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

Seeing at how the once interesting discussion devolved when you turned in, i somehow doubt this. It is at least the case of the cauldron calling the cooking--pot fat.

I saw it more as you got ignored because you refused to provide sources.

Perspective. An interesting beast.

I admit that was rather dumb, especially in vicinity of people who will doubt that day alternates with night if they feel it supports their stance

You think people want you to source your claims purely as a ploy?

That's not the way debate works, my friend. You can say whatever you like, but don't expect it to be considered valid until you've supported it with evidence.

You might have missed what happened earlier.

See, I said that abortion is a necessity and that's why it will never be eliminated. Also, responding to someone else on another point, I stated that I will have sex if I want to and will have an abortion if I need to, and I challenged him as to what he would intend to do about that. That person and CS then tried to conflate those statements into the false claim that I said that people will die if they don't have sex. I did mention that there are a lot of health benefits to sex, but I never said people die without it.

So CS then demanded that I prove that people need sex to survive. Of course I refused because I never made any such claim, and as everyone should know by now, I don't defend arguments I didn't make. He kept insisting, and I kept refusing, with a healthy dose of snark. I guess that must have annoyed him or something.

Then he made a specific assertion of fact, i.e. that authoritarian dictatorships value human life more than democracies do. At that point I denounced and dismissed him as a troll.

However, Dempublicents decided to engage him on that and destroyed his nonsense with her usual grace.

So now he's ignoring her in favor of getting pissy at me, acting all mad-n-shit because I demanded he back up his assertion of fact, after I refused to back up a claim I had never made.

And, of course, we saw what happened when he did post links. They did not help him.

[Central Slavia]

So accusing me posting sections of law from my secret diary is not dismissing facts?

Suggesting that you're pulling stuff out of your hat, when you consistently refuse to provide sources... no, that's not 'dismissing facts'.

It's dismissing OPINION, until you source it. Then it MIGHT be dismissing facts, if the source agreed with you.

I have in between posted sources for the stuff. that is definitely not 'consistently refusing'

[Muravyets]

Put softly. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. Everybody.

Oh, this is nothing. You should have seen it earlier when CS was really trying to bait people. Go read his posts. You'll lol at the brazenness.

And anyway, like most people who never had a leg to stand on and now realize that, he's sliding away from the topic and into bitching at me. That means he gets instructed to read my sig, and the argument is over.

By the way, I agree with your first post.

[Central Slavia]

You might have missed what happened earlier.

See, I said that abortion is a necessity and that's why it will never be eliminated. Also, responding to someone else on another point, I stated that I will have sex if I want to and will have an abortion if I need to, and I challenged him as to what he would intend to do about that. That person and CS then tried to conflate those statements into the false claim that I said that people will die if they don't have sex. I did mention that there are a lot of health benefits to sex, but I never said people die without it.

As far as i know. URS responded with the fact that it is not necessity as you do not need to have sex, you merely want to and that without sex there is no reason for wanton abortion (as opposed to legitimate subclasses of which can occur)
Then since your response tried to compare it with eating which is a bodily need, while not addressing the objection at all, i and him continued asking about it.

Then he made a specific assertion of fact, i.e. that authoritarian dictatorships value human life more than democracies do. At that point I denounced and dismissed him as a troll.

However, Dempublicents decided to engage him on that and destroyed his nonsense with her usual grace.

I made a claim suggesting they are better in general, as in general a substantial amount of state control is good. This infers (although it is strictly logically a bit fishy) that the field of abortions is no different - a substantial level of control will be better.

[Muravyets]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

You suppose that the people who support choice have not worked through the ethics of the situation and reached a stable position. Working through the qualms to a point of equilibrium so that one can make one's decision is not the same as "no ... qualms...flat out."

[Central Slavia]

And anyway, like most people who never had a leg to stand on and now realize that, he's sliding away from the topic and into bitching at me. That means he gets instructed to read my sig, and the argument is over.

This does it

[Muravyets]

Right. All of which actually supports Dem's arguments, not yours, as Dem pointed out. It is your lack of reading comprehension (or just lack of reading) that is at fault here. You think that examples of the PRC NOT controlling people's private lives is a support of your argument that it is good for the state to control people's private lives

Because, it is exerting a moderate , warranted level of control, as i have stated,not leaving everything to oh-so-wise individuals. It is similar to the fact that re-hanging a painting lower is not the same as throwing it on to the floor.

That is your claim about the facts. It is not a fact itself. And since it is not borne out by the facts, it fails.

So the fact that people in belarus live better than in ukraine does not support my claim?

No, it does not, and not just because "better" is another subjective claim of yours and not a fact.

So accusing me posting sections of law from my secret diary is not dismissing facts?

No, it's a dismissal of YOU.

reads as: We glues can spend time better denouncing your rubberiness

After all this back and forth, I have but one question left: Are you 10? or 12?

[ExpillaPatronun]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

You suppose that the people who support choice have not worked through the ethics of the situation and reached a stable position. Working through the qualms to a point of equilibrium so that one can make one's decision is not the same as "no ... qualms...flat out."

You suppose that the question was framed as one of choice.

It wasn't.

It wasn't even framed as "Should abortion be illegal?"

Merely, "Is abortion ethical?"

Either 2/3rd realized it was a bad question and didn't want their opinion to be misconstrued as a vote against a woman's right to privacy, or 2/3rds really think glibbly terminating a pregnancy is morally sound, or some combination of the 2.

[Muravyets]

You might have missed what happened earlier.

See, I said that abortion is a necessity and that's why it will never be eliminated. Also, responding to someone else on another point, I stated that I will have sex if I want to and will have an abortion if I need to, and I challenged him as to what he would intend to do about that. That person and CS then tried to conflate those statements into the false claim that I said that people will die if they don't have sex. I did mention that there are a lot of health benefits to sex, but I never said people die without it.

As far as i know<snip>

Case closed. You've demonstrated how far you know, and it ain't very far at all. 'Buh-bye.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

You suppose that the people who support choice have not worked through the ethics of the situation and reached a stable position. Working through the qualms to a point of equilibrium so that one can make one's decision is not the same as "no ... qualms...flat out."

You suppose that the question was framed as one of choice.

It wasn't.

It wasn't even framed as "Should abortion be illegal?"

Merely, "Is abortion ethical?"

Either 2/3rd realized it was a bad question and didn't want their opinion to be misconstrued as a vote against a woman's right to privacy, or 2/3rds really think glibbly terminating a pregnancy is morally sound, or some combination of the 2.

Or neither. ANd that's really the risk with trying to read too much depth into answers to a best-fit question.

[Muravyets]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

You suppose that the people who support choice have not worked through the ethics of the situation and reached a stable position. Working through the qualms to a point of equilibrium so that one can make one's decision is not the same as "no ... qualms...flat out."

You suppose that the question was framed as one of choice.

It wasn't.

It wasn't even framed as "Should abortion be illegal?"

Merely, "Is abortion ethical?"

Either 2/3rd realized it was a bad question and didn't want their opinion to be misconstrued as a vote against a woman's right to privacy, or 2/3rds really think glibbly terminating a pregnancy is morally sound, or some combination of the 2.

Are you another who mistakes their own personal opinions for objective facts?

1) You don't get to imagine what was going on the minds of people you don't know and use that as a factual basis for explaining their behavior. Your imagination about what others are thinking =/= fact.

2) You don't get to dismiss all abortions as "glibly" (one B) terminating a pregnancy. Try reading the thread before you toss in your "insights" and responding to arguments that have already been made in detail. Your imagination about why people decide to do things you don't approve of =/= fact.

3) Finally, your opinions about abortion =/= fact, either, not even when you try to pass them off as fact.

[Dempublicents1]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

The poll doesn't really provide a way to answer with that type of nuance. Personally, I chose not to answer at all because I don't see the question as being answerable with a "yes" or "no". However, I'm sure others went with whatever was closest.

Right. All of which actually supports Dem's arguments, not yours, as Dem pointed out. It is your lack of reading comprehension (or just lack of reading) that is at fault here. You think that examples of the PRC NOT controlling people's private lives is a support of your argument that it is good for the state to control people's private lives

Because, it is exerting a moderate , warranted level of control, as i have stated,not leaving everything to oh-so-wise individuals. It is similar to the fact that re-hanging a painting lower is not the same as throwing it on to the floor.

You're making the wrong comparison. You've shown that exerting less control than they have in the past is an improvement, something I agree with. I'm still waiting for evidence that exerting even less control would not be even more of an improvement.

[Central Slavia]

Easy - china still does not have problems with population decline, quite the opposite sometimes, unlike countries where not much control at all exists.
Of course there are other factors at play , like the pro-social attitude the govt has, but i think the strongest argument is how would the population evolve if for example the one child policy was removed.

[Arkinesia]

Easy - china still does not have problems with population decline, quite the opposite sometimes, unlike countries where not much control at all exists.
Of course there are other factors at play , like the pro-social attitude the govt has, but i think the strongest argument is how would the population evolve if for example the one child policy was removed.

China is headed to a hellhole if the one-child policy isn't revoked. Unless, of course, a country full of womanless, horny men is a good idea to you.

[El-Yonder]

Prisoners have broken the law and we still don't use their bodies against their will. They still get to make their own medical decisions. Why should a woman who has consensual sex - and thus has not broken the law - be treated with less respect?

This cannot be repeated enough.

Every time somebody whines about the "rights of the unborn," they need to be asked this. Why should an "unborn baby" have rights which no born person has, and why should a born human woman have fewer rights than we give to convicted serial killers?

I have asked this three times in this thread:

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a woman's?

And it has been ignored every time.

Not ignored, they'll just argue that pregnancy is just a minor INCONVENIENCE for the woman, so she should INCONVENIENCE herself a little instead of being a selfish bitch who is only out for her own pleasure.

To which I reply, again, with my words from earlier in the thread:

I was prepared to stab myself in the stomach to end my pregnancy. I was willing to stick a sharp object through my cervix. I was prepared to drink poison. That's how much I wanted to "avoid inconvenience." Tell me again how I was only thinking of my own pleasure?

While you're at it, tell all the women around the world who shove broken glass through their cervixes that they're just trying to escape a bit of inconvenience.

Talk to the women who drink drain cleaner to try to abort, and tell them about how they're selfishly thinking only of their own pleasure.

Want to meet a woman who douched (washed out her vagina) with paint thinner because she was trying to abort her pregnancy? I was in the lobby when one was brought in, and if you could have made yourself heard over her sobs then maybe you'd have been able to tell her about how wrong it is for her to get an abortion "for pleasure."

There really aren't the words to express the amount of contempt I feel for the tiny, selfish, ignorant individuals who have the nerve to claim that abortion is just something women do for funzies because they don't want to bother with a little discomfort. It is only slightly outweighed by the pity I feel for such anti-life, anti-human individuals, since I know they will never be capable of having a meaningful relationship with a female human being, and that's a real shame.

So ,you being prepared to cause far worse injury to yourself than pregnancy does in 1000 cases is somehow a reason to allow abortion?

You're missing the point.

It's not about whether or not you "allow abortion." It's whether or not you allow SAFE abortions. Abortion will happen whether you allow it or not. Bans on abortion are actually correlated with INCREASES IN ABORTION RATES.

That's the actual reality, and all your self-indulgent lectures about how you know better than women do won't make the slightest difference. The opinion that you, an ignorant stranger, have about my body and my situation counts to the sum of zero, and won't stop me from making what I believe to be the right choice for myself. And you know what? I'm not special or unique in that respect. Women make the same damn choice every single day.

That some people do act stupidly is as well? But, drug addicts also are prepared to do anything for their dose - should we provide them as well?

I love how women who have consensual sex (as if they had the right or something!) are now compared to "drug addicts." Yes, we're addicted to having sharp objects shoved up our cooters, or having to take pills that cause us to cramp and bleed for a week straight, or (best of all!) having a vacuum stuffed up into places that should only ever be treated nicely.

Lastly there might be circumstances where such extreme action might be warranted.
As i said i am not entirely against abortion , just wanton one.

As you've shown, you're not entirely against abortion, you just think you should be the one who decides which abortions are "justified" and which are "wanton."

You're so arrogant that you'll label me 'stupid' without knowing for one instant what my situation was. Tell me, was I raped? Was my life in danger from my pregnancy? Did the doctor inform me that carrying to term would cripple me, or render me infertile for the rest of my life? Was I trying to escape an abusive boyfriend? Was I addicted to drugs and didn't want to give birth to a baby with serious defects or drug addiction? Do I have a genetic disease that I desperately don't want to pass on?

You're ready to label my choice as "wanton," so go ahead and tell me all about my situation. Prove that you know what you're talking about.

Or, you know, just apologize for your petty insults and inappropriate comments. The way a grown-up would do.

I am starting to get an idea - to get an abortion the woman should appear before a commission that would medically and socio-economically assess her and the environment . If they agree she will get the abortion ,and for free.

I'd rather shove broken glass up my vagina then stand in front of a commission of people like you just so that I can hear all about how my choices are too 'wanton' or 'stupid' and therefore I'm going to be denied a safe abortion and will have to resort to shoving broken glass up my vagina.

Quite honestly, do you REALLY have to bash the other opinions? This is a forum, and the topic, with so many different opinions, is open to debate. But you're not the only one out there who believes abortion isn't wrong.
Quite frankly, I'm not one of those people, but I know several others who are. And really, you're speaking from a woman's POV. I'm pretty sure what most guys would have to say about the topic, but, my not being one, can't say for certain. You have strong ideas, and are willing to back them up (props to you ), but you're taking it from a liberalism/relativism stand-point. I having a conservatism/moralist stand-point, view it differently, even if the case scenario were something like permanent infertility or rape.

Anywho, that's all I have to say.

[El-Yonder]

Here's a true story told to me & my friends by my old 4th grade teacher:

A friend of hers walked into the doc's office one day with her 4-year-old son. She waited about 10 minutes until he also entered.
"Why, it's good to see you again," he told her. "What can I do for you?" She hesitated slightly before asking him to abort her child. He smiled pleasantly, and replied, "How about we come to a compromise: how's about I save you the trouble and get rid of that kid on your lap." (pointing to her son).
She gasped in astonishment and said "I'd never let you."
"That's what you're asking me to do with your other son," he told her.
She looked down momentarily, then walked out of the room and thought about it.

In the end, she had 7 kids altogether.

is that a GOOD story? i find it kinda creepy.

Kinda creepy, Ash? One wonders where the doctor took his courses in bedside manner, if he took any at all.

im feeling very sorry for the woman so pressed that she had to take her 4 year old in with her for an abortion consultation.

That, too. But like all such parables, the story only includes the parts that the teller needs to make his point. Nothing said about why the woman thought she wanted an abortion, for instance.

Well, obviously, she wanted an abortion because she was a stupid, selfish, murderous woman who just wantonly kills for her own convenience until some man teaches her right from wrong and how to obey.

LOL

[El-Yonder]

She wanted an abortion because she figured that 1 child would be a handful (I have a 5 year old brother, and boy is it rough!), so, yeah.

That's about it.

[South Norwega]

Easy - china still does not have problems with population decline, quite the opposite sometimes, unlike countries where not much control at all exists.
Of course there are other factors at play , like the pro-social attitude the govt has, but i think the strongest argument is how would the population evolve if for example the one child policy was removed.

That's primarily because the parents of the Single Children haven't died yet.

The One Child Policy is somewhat unsustainable.

[Bottle]

Quite honestly, do you REALLY have to bash the other opinions? This is a forum, and the topic, with so many different opinions, is open to debate. But you're not the only one out there who believes abortion isn't wrong.

Yes, I do need to "bash" people like you, because you claim to care about this topic and you claim to find women selfish and lazy for not wanting to carry pregnancies to term, but you can't be bothered to read a thread before you post repetitive, ignorant nonsense that has already been addressed and discarded.

Posters like you are like puppies peeing on the carpet of this forum. The way we paper-train you is by telling you NO, BAD DOG! and giving you a little thwack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Quite frankly, I'm not one of those people, but I know several others who are. And really, you're speaking from a woman's POV. I'm pretty sure what most guys would have to say about the topic, but, my not being one, can't say for certain.

And again, if you weren't being so lazy, arrogant, and sloppy you'd have read the many pro-choice guys who've already posted in this topic.

You have strong ideas, and are willing to back them up (props to you ), but you're taking it from a liberalism/relativism stand-point. I having a conservatism/moralist stand-point, view it differently, even if the case scenario were something like permanent infertility or rape.

Anywho, that's all I have to say.

Sorry, champ, but all opinions are not equal.

A lazy, arrogant, uninformed opinion posted by somebody who can't be bothered to even read the thread is worthless, through simple laws of supply and demand. The internet is not lacking in uneducated and self-important editorials, so your failure to do your homework on this topic doesn't make you a special and unique snowflake for us all to treasure. You're just another name to add to the list of people who would rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality. Yawn.

[Callisdrun]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

[Bottle]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

The question is a little too binary to deduce that from the responses, don't you think?

The choices are 'yes' or 'no' - which doesn't necessarily mean a 'yes' is 'no ethical qualms...flat out'.

Yeah, I don't know about anybody else, but I have "qualms" about a lot of things that I will eventually conclude are ethical. I've also never met a woman who DIDN'T have qualms about abortion on some level, including all the pro-choice women I know.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

But eating children could help cure world hunger. Fatten them up for a year or so and roast them in a slow cooker with the spices of your choice and you've got a pretty good meal ready to eat. (Not to mention that the birthrate around the world would ensure that the population wouldn't decline all that much, especially if they repeal the One Child policy in China.)

[Callisdrun]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

But eating children could help cure world hunger. Fatten them up for a year or so and roast them in a slow cooker with the spices of your choice and you've got a pretty good meal ready to eat. (Not to mention that the birthrate around the world would ensure that the population wouldn't decline all that much, especially if they repeal the One Child policy in China.)

Everyone knows that's why we liberals have so much premarital sex. It's to knock each other up so that we can feast on the aborted fetuses.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

But eating children could help cure world hunger. Fatten them up for a year or so and roast them in a slow cooker with the spices of your choice and you've got a pretty good meal ready to eat. (Not to mention that the birthrate around the world would ensure that the population wouldn't decline all that much, especially if they repeal the One Child policy in China.)

Everyone knows that's why we liberals have so much premarital sex. It's to knock each other up so that we can feast on the aborted fetuses.

Which is just another reason to condemn liberals and go back to the good old days of burning people at the stake for disagreeing with the established rules of society.

[Callisdrun]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

But eating children could help cure world hunger. Fatten them up for a year or so and roast them in a slow cooker with the spices of your choice and you've got a pretty good meal ready to eat. (Not to mention that the birthrate around the world would ensure that the population wouldn't decline all that much, especially if they repeal the One Child policy in China.)

Everyone knows that's why we liberals have so much premarital sex. It's to knock each other up so that we can feast on the aborted fetuses.

Which is just another reason to condemn liberals and go back to the good old days of burning people at the stake for disagreeing with the established rules of society.

Obviously. We've got to be stopped somehow.