Abortion question for the religious

[TheLoneSock]

Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?

 

We do. It's called paying state and federal taxes on our income.

 

Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.

 

Are you just posting to egg people on?

 

It's not hypocritical to want a mother to take responsibility for her child. Not in any way, shape or form.

[FleshNBones]

Abortion rights are a matter of gender equity; women will never be the social equals of men unless they are allowed to decide when, and if, to bear children.

That is easy. STOP SCREWING AROUND!!!! (literally) Maybe there wouldn't be quite so many STDs moving around.

Abortion rights are a matter of economic justice; the rich will always find a way to get whatever medical services they want. Only the poor suffer from abortion bans.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[color=red]Ironically, this this thread was aimed at religious people.[/color]

Abortion rights are a matter of privacy rights; the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term ought to be between a woman and her physician. It is none of the government's business.

And you are unwilling to extend the right-to-life to the human being she is carrying.

Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a secular society; let's face it, the anti-abortion crowd is almost entirely made up up right-wing Christian zealots. They've no right to deny the public neccessary medical services on sectarian religious grounds.

It is no more necessary than a bikini wax.

Abortion rights are a matter of public health; banning abortion just forces it underground. That creates a black market run by organized criminals, staffed by unqualified quacks, and women dying needless deaths.

Banning it might force girls and boys to take the issues of sex and pregnancy a little more seriously.

Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a just and humane society. All around the world, societies that allow safe and legal abortion also take the best care of children. Societies that forbid abortion let children die in the streets. Pro-choice, quasi-socialist Denmark provides free day care, free health care, free education. Pro-life Brazil is overrun with homelss children who rob and steal to survive.

Again. A lot more seperates underdeveloped 3rd world countries and developed countries than just the issue of abortion.

Do you honestly think enabling abortion (by itself) in Brazil will turn it into another Denmark?

[ADF]

Taramere, you grasp exactly what I was getting at when I began this thread. It is the thing some others here have so far failed to grasp.

 

It is not enough to simply make an abstract calculation about what is right and act accordingly. You have to consider the impacts of policy decisions in THE REAL WORLD, not in some hypothetical la-la land where everyone is good and rightious and behaves in a perfectly responsible manner.

 

Personal responsibility is a fine thing, but it is not enough. You also have to enact polices that are socially responsible.

[FleshNBones]

There really shouldn't be anything to argue about. No one is suppose to know the medical procedures and treatment of others. Medical records are suppose to be confidential. If these standards are being followed, there is no one to point an indignant finger at.

It is part of the Hippocratic Oath fer crying out loud!

Most of the argument is designed to keep contributions flowing and easily distracted people focused on what suits ya. Please give us money to help keep your privacy private in the name of "Mom and dad wouldn't let me get on birth control". It gives some of you something to do on your days off and HEY HEY! hand your 5 year old a sign they don't understand and tell them to call people on the street murderers and that they're going to hell. Funny times for the whole family! That's what you carried your kid to term for anyway......

 

It still boils down to you are not suppose to know if your neighbor got an abortion to begin with. My medical records about my body and my right to you not being in my life.

The oath also says do no harm.

[always_searching]

Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?

 

Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.

 

Further, there are plenty of individuals currently in existence who aren't necessarily living the most fruitful lives. By your logic, we should kill them off, since no one is coughing up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted mentally ill, disabled, infirm, etc.. I mean, shoot, maybe we should set a standard for when murdering innocent persons is okay? How about this:

 

If that person's life isn't that great: kill 'em. If that person isn't of a certain mental capability: kill 'em. If a person doesn't have a certain life-style: kill 'em. If a person doesn't look a certain way: kill 'em.

 

Hopefully, such a proposal is shockingly absurd to you. However, that is exactly the kind of ramifications that come with basing the right to life of an individual on his/her quality of life. Who, pray tell, is to determine what quality of life is acceptable?

[TheLoneSock]

I wonder how society would go about deciding who had really been raped, and who was just making up a rape allegation in order to get an abortion.

 

Rape kits done at the hopsital soon after the rape, lie detector tests, and investigation by police would clear this up. Rape allegations are taken seriously, and there falsely claiming rape can land the woman herself in prison. THAT is the incentive not to lie. Your concern is genuine, but a very weak argument against abortion only for rape victims.

 

I would say that the more society interferes with that individual's freedoms, the more responsibility it has to take for the consequences of that interference. I'm not convinced society would do a great job of managing the various outcomes of effectively telling women "you don't have the right to an abortion, unless you've been raped."

 

You sound like you don't trust the government, which is ok- that's how you feel. I believe in less government too. However, if your argument is based off of government control- when it comes to life and death on such a direct level, they SHOULD be intervening and forming regulations. ESPECIALLY if it has to do with state and federal resources. (Women use public clinics for most abortions, funded by state and federal taxes. Yes they have to pay for it when they can, but those nurses and doctors are still paid for by tax dollars.)

[TheLoneSock]

Taramere, you grasp exactly what I was getting at when I began this thread. It is the thing some others here have so far failed to grasp.

 

It is not enough to simply make an abstract calculation about what is right and act accordingly. You have to consider the impacts of policy decisions in THE REAL WORLD, not in some hypothetical la-la land where everyone is good and rightious and behaves in a perfectly responsible manner.

 

Personal responsibility is a fine thing, but it is not enough. You also have to enact polices that are socially responsible.

 

If you wanted to discuss abortion on a political level, why did you include religion in the title?

[Taramere]

It is not enough to simply make an abstract calculation about what is right and act accordingly. You have to consider the impacts of policy decisions in THE REAL WORLD, not in some hypothetical la-la land where everyone is good and rightious and behaves in a perfectly responsible manner.

 

Very succinctly stated. Good luck with this thread...you're up against it, for sure!

[kdark]

The Roe v. Wade case was a case where a woman tried to fake a rape in order to get an abortion in Texas, so we can safely assume women will try to get an abortion by xlaiming rape. And this also brings into the discussion a whole other crime of a man and a woman having consentual sex, woman gets pregnant, and then claims rape to get an abortion, and the man goes to jail. I've read a few stories of this happening.

 

And James, the right to privacy is a huge factor in the abortion debate, since that it what the state law in Texas banning abortion was found to violate, which resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision.

[FleshNBones]

FleshandBones, what about my other arguments--i.e. gender equity, economic justice, secularism, etc?

 

El Salvador, like the pro-life movement in the US, only cares about unborn kids. They couldn't care less about kids once they're born.

 

About 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated. What plan does the pro-life crowd have for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care to the tens of millions of additional children who would be born each year in the wake of an effective abortion ban? I have not heard a thing. On the contrary, most of the pro-life crowd OPPOSES policies like universdal day care, which would actually mkae life better for kids after they were born. Until I hear a concrete, specific plan for what to do with all these children, I will continue to regard pro-life arguments as so much white noise. These people aren't serious. They have nothing to say.

Abortion is not a good solution to the unwed pregnancy problem in the US.

Maybe you should address issues like the media's marketing of sex to ever younger children, permissive parrenting, and the lack of good role models.

 

Abortion today is just a way of sweeping the real problem under the rug.

[ADF]

If you wanted to discuss abortion on a political level, why did you include religion in the title?

 

Abortion is by definition a political issue. There is no such thing as a non-political discussion about abortion. If you know fo one, I'd love to see it.

 

I addressed my particular point to the religious because the anti-choice (aka pro-life) movement is almost entirely comprised of devout Christians. They are at the heart of the poltical debate.

[TheLoneSock]

Abortion is by definition a political issue. There is no such thing as a non-political discussion about abortion. If you know fo one, I'd love to see it.

 

I addressed my particular point to the religious because the anti-choice (aka pro-life) movement is almost entirely comprised of devout Christians. They are at the heart of the poltical debate.

 

So you addressed devout Christians about their views on abortion, and then ask them to leave their moral beliefs aside?

 

Please tell me you're kidding. You don't seem to understand the 'heart' of the political debate at all.

[always_searching]

Taramere, you grasp exactly what I was getting at when I began this thread. It is the thing some others here have so far failed to grasp.

 

It is not enough to simply make an abstract calculation about what is right and act accordingly. You have to consider the impacts of policy decisions in THE REAL WORLD, not in some hypothetical la-la land where everyone is good and rightious and behaves in a perfectly responsible manner.

 

You're right. We should definitely enact policies that have no good and righteous foundation, since people aren't perfect. So, yeah, murder might be morally wrong, but hey, it's not the government's place to get involved. Let's face it: sometimes when someone borrows you're stuff without asking, it really pisses you off, and you might kill 'em. Hey, I'm not perfect. In the real world, why should the government give a crap about the death of one thieving individual?

 

We're talking about the life of a person, not some trivial, "Why should the government give a crap?" situation! The individual persons are what make up a society! The society is created to protect and honor their value as a person and their right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. How can an individual have any of those rights if they are murdered?

 

Personal responsibility is a fine thing, but it is not enough. You also have to enact polices that are socially responsible.

 

And those socially responsible policies are those that correlate with the morally responsible policies.

 

So, for example, it may be socially better to kill off certain individuals who are no longer productive to the society. Clearly, however, such an action would not be morally responsible. Morality must coincide with legality, else something as radically immoral as Nazi Germany could be considered a "socially responsible" government.

[kdark]

Further, there are plenty of individuals currently in existence who aren't necessarily living the most fruitful lives. By your logic, we should kill them off, since no one is coughing up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted mentally ill, disabled, infirm, etc.. I mean, shoot, maybe we should set a standard for when murdering innocent persons is okay? How about this:

 

If that person's life isn't that great: kill 'em. If that person isn't of a certain mental capability: kill 'em. If a person doesn't have a certain life-style: kill 'em. If a person doesn't look a certain way: kill 'em.

 

Hopefully, such a proposal is shockingly absurd to you. However, that is exactly the kind of ramifications that come with basing the right to life of an individual on his/her quality of life. Who, pray tell, is to determine what quality of life is acceptable?

 

The crux of your argument against abortion is that zygote is a person, and we can't end the life of the zygote, since that is murder. I and many others on this board disagree.

 

Bringing up the murder of the mentally disabled and handicapped is only clouding the discussion with nonsense like that. Their isn't a sane person alive who would agree to something like that, and appealing to extremes like that is illogical. It's the same thing that anti gay marriage people bring up about how gays getting married will lead to people getting married to animals.

[Taramere]

Rape kits done at the hopsital soon after the rape, lie detector tests, and investigation by police would clear this up. Rape allegations are taken seriously, and there falsely claiming rape can land the woman herself in prison. THAT is the incentive not to lie. Your concern is genuine, but a very weak argument against abortion only for rape victims.

 

Rape is a notoriously difficult thing to prove or disprove..and not all women report it straight away. Often they're too ashamed or afraid - which obviously complicates the entire evidence gathering exercise. Would you have women punished for that? Would you tell them "nope sorry. I sympathise, but you reported it too late. Got to carry that child full term now..."?

 

You surely can't believe that with the introduction of an "outlawing abortion except in instances of rape" policy, the whole process surrounding proving or disproving rape would suddenly become a simpler thing than it currently is? Regarding your views about polygraph testing clearing matters up...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/06/nyregion/lie-detector-tests-are-banned-on-victims-alleging-rape.html

[FleshNBones]

Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?

 

Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.

Just bill the unwanted children, and they can work it off once they are old enough.

We are already billing them for the stimulous package. Pretty soon, we will be billing them for Obamacare (Seperate issue). It is a lot more humane than killing them.

[always_searching]

The crux of your argument against abortion is that zygote is a person, and we can't end the life of the zygote, since that is murder. I and many others on this board disagree.

 

Bringing up the murder of the mentally disabled and handicapped is only clouding the discussion with nonsense like that. Their isn't a sane person alive who would agree to something like that, and appealing to extremes like that is illogical. It's the same thing that anti gay marriage people bring up about how gays getting married will lead to people getting married to animals.

 

Actually, sadly, there are sane individuals (at least as "sane" as those claiming abortion is moral) who argue for just that, and as I find it a relevant comparison in the pro-choice discussion of personhood depending upon some accidental attribute that must be gained at some point in the individual's life to indicate their personhood: I'll continue to use it.

 

I don't think you're entirely understanding the argument. I am claiming that all human-beings are persons--homosexuals included. No one of sound mind would claim that two individual persons of the same gender marrying is anything like marrying animals. I don't see how this situation is at all analogous to my discussion of personhood claiming that all human-beings are persons, unless you're using it to back of the fallaciousness of arguments claiming that zygotes are no better than animals, since they are not persons...

Edited October 26, 2009 by always_searching

[TheLoneSock]

Rape is a notoriously difficult thing to prove or disprove..and not all women report it straight away. Often they're too ashamed or afraid - which obviously complicates the entire evidence gathering exercise. Would you have women punished for that? Would you tell them "nope sorry. I sympathise, but you reported it too late. Got to carry that child full term now..."?

 

You twist it and change the subject. I'm not talking about women who actually ARE raped. I have been around many rape victims, most rapes are never reported at all. Women who have actually been raped act ENTIRELY different than women who are only claiming rape. The point of my argument was that there are ways to prove a woman is lying about claiming rape. Not to prove a woman wasn't when she really was. There is a difference. Regardless, this part of the topic is very small- your basis for assuming all women would simply claim rape in order to get the abortion is still a very weak argument. If you want to discuss rape in it's own subject, start a new thread.

 

You surely can't believe that with the introduction of an "outlawing abortion except in instances of rape" policy, the whole process surrounding proving or disproving rape would suddenly become a simpler thing than it currently is? Regarding your views about polygraph testing clearing matters up...

 

I don't believe in "outlawing abortion except in instances of rape", please show me where I said that. Again twisting words for the sake of your argument.

[TheLoneSock]

Just bill the unwanted children, and they can work it off once they are old enough.

We are already billing them for the stimulous package. Pretty soon, we will be billing them for Obamacare (Seperate issue). It is a lot more humane than killing them.

 

I like your sarcastic responses. They drive the point home with satire.

[northstar1]

You twist it and change the subject. I'm not talking about women who actually ARE raped. I have been around many rape victims, most rapes are never reported at all. Women who have actually been raped act ENTIRELY different than women who are only claiming rape. The point of my argument was that there are ways to prove a woman is lying about claiming rape. Not to prove a woman wasn't when she really was. There is a difference. Regardless, this part of the topic is very small- your basis for assuming all women would simply claim rape in order to get the abortion is still a very weak argument. If you want to discuss rape in it's own subject, start a new thread.

 

 

 

I don't believe in "outlawing abortion except in instances of rape", please show me where I said that. Again twisting words for the sake of your argument.

 

Perhaps I misread, but wasn't your first post a view that women should be denied access to abortion unless they were a victim of rape?

[TheLoneSock]

Perhaps I misread, but wasn't your first post a view that women should be denied access to abortion unless they were a victim of rape?

 

Yes, but I was corrected afterwards by another poster and I agreed with him. Regulation should include all instances except in cases of rape, or when the mother is at fatal risk due to the pregnancy. Part of the information is not the information

[sally4sara]

The oath also says do no harm.

 

Well then its conflicted enough to qualify as a missing book of the bible. Lets start a new religion!

 

My sect will go by the "I have a right to medical confidentiality" stance.

 

You can stay with "a cluster of cells should have more rights than an adult female" stance

 

I'll have less presents to buy on my holidays.

[Taramere]

You twist it and change the subject.

 

No, I was speculating on the probable real life implications of putting into practice a principle you expounded in your first post on this thread.

 

This thread is not an advocacy centre for people with comprehension problems. People posting on it aren't obliged to express everything in the simplest and most easy to follow terms. If logical debate is too difficult for you, then there are plenty of other less serious threads on here for you to use...rather than ranting at people for "twisting" words, because you lack the ability to keep up with what they're saying.

[FleshNBones]

Well then its conflicted enough to qualify as a missing book of the bible. Lets start a new religion!

 

My sect will go by the "I have a right to medical confidentiality" stance.

 

You can stay with "a cluster of cells should have more rights than an adult female" stance

 

I'll have less presents to buy on my holidays.

But our government has no trouble taxing them.

That is taxation without representation at its worst.

 

Obama has a nice ponzi scheme going. The victims aren't old enogh to vote, and in your case, aren't human enough. What he is doing should be criminal, but guess what, we will be looking for ways to punish George Dubya because we are such an enlightened people.

 

Here is another opinion. If you can tax a human being, that individual should be awarded human rights. Citizenship can come with birth. It is bad enough the government picks the pockets of dead people.

[sally4sara]

But our government has no trouble taxing them.

That is taxation without representation at its worst.

 

Obama has a nice ponzi scheme going. The victims aren't old enogh to vote, and in your case, aren't human enough. What he is doing should be criminal, but guess what, we will be looking for ways to punish George Dubya because we are such an enlightened people.

 

Here is another opinion. If you can tax a human being, that individual should be awarded human rights. Citizenship can come with birth. It is bad enough the government picks the pockets of dead people.

 

Ummmm, who is "them"?

 

We tax inanimate objects. Should they get human rights too. I mean, in the name of punishing Dubya, as you suggest.......