Choices have consequences. Actually yes really. Proper contraceptive use is pretty much 100% effective. So is getting tubes tied, which is less risky than a D&C. Or seek a partner who has had a vasectomy. Or one could just...gasp....exercise sexual self control. Plenty of people do and live normally. You are proposing forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, and for no good reason except that's what YOU want. [/quote] Yes, and I also don't want many other people to be killed either. Silly me, so selfish. You are not considering the potential of future problems of having only 1 kidney. For example you can be put on permanent dialysis from a routine kidney stone. Also, pregnancy is 100% avoidable. For some reason in our culture we have this massive double standard. Like if somebody makes a choice to get hammered and crashes their car, or smokes and gets lung cancer, its a choice not a need. But for another completely optional activity, they are a victim. Choices have consequences. It's not 'just normal' to do whatever you feel like, even though TV tells you it is.
Yes, and that means choosing to have sex means the possibility of having to choose to abort or birth. Proper contraceptive use isn't that good, and you cannot expect 100% "proper" use from people who haven't received adequate education on using them. Vasectomies and tubal ligations, while quite reliable, are not 100%, I know a woman who has had her tubes tied 3 times. Plenty of people are abstinent for a number of reasons, absence from a spouse, illness, etc., but to expect healthy normal people to remain abstinent for birth control in the absence of other mitigating circumstances is not realistic. Those who don't believe zefs to BE "people" aren't going to be swayed by your wants. I AM considering the possibility of future problems from kidney transplants, you are not considering the possibility of future problems from pregnancy. If you think pregnancy should be a matter of force by law to "save lives", it is only fair to consider forcible donation of spare body parts to "save lives" to be reasonable. We treat people medically all the time for the resulting problems from making bad choices, if a pregnancy is the result of a bad choice, and unwanted pregnancies frequently, although not always, are the result of a bad choice, it does not dissolve the woman's right to her choice of medical treatment.
A very interesting perspective. Some of us believe fatherhood is more than being sperm donor and children are more than property.
In the same way anyone receiving an organ donation would be pro-motorcycle accident? In the same way anyone who might get a tax break from nationalizing all personal assets over $1 million dollars would be pro-socialism? Or in the same way anyone benefiting from the medical advances made in Auschwitz would be pro... well you get the idea. Just because you might benefit from something doesn't oblige you to support it. One person gives another a dollar, the second man spends it in building a company. By your logic both people have an equal say in the company... doesn't work that way. The fetus is growing in the mothers body and with the excpetion of the sperm donated to the woman by the man, every other piece of that fetus is taken from the mother's body. Demanding the she not be allowed to halt this process... well that's basicaly reducing her rights to that of an incubator. In no way is the man asked to make a similar sacrifice and in no way should he have equal rights to the effect the process. You're against treatment of STDs? You're doing it wrong. Consider a basic sex-ed class.
Well having no spouse or being ill does not make a person 'abnormal'. And what defines normal at one time in some places was to eradicate Jewish people. So we need some kind of greater idea of what rights people should have, rather than just the political trends. That may be, but it doesn't mean there is no valid argument. It's a matter of opinion, but I feel that an unborn baby should not pay the price of death for the choices of another person. If you ever take care of patients, you will find out that pregnancy rarely causes complications in people who were not already destined to have them. Self abuse and irresponsible behaviors greatly increase the risk of all these things, not only in pregnancy but many other situations. These again are all a choice, and not a reason IMO to terminate a fetus just to give people yet another reason to not cope with their problems in a responsible, healthy manner.
I do not believe that anyone stated that there aren't any valid arguments, the bigger question is are those arguments when taken all together compelling enough to render abortion illegal again and will such change really accomplish the intended goals and be a net benefit to society? I do not believe so. Your problem is that you are setting aside the cold hard facts and are relying on emotional appeal to be that basis of your position. And that can be still fine is you are airing your personal opinion, feeling or belief. The bigger question again is: Do you wish to impose them of everyone else who do not share them?
Well if the intended goals are to preserve unborn babies, then obviously it would. I've demonstrated how in nations that have undergone law changes, this radically altered abortion rates, contrary to popular myth. Studies that try to say otherwise, simply ignore those situations and compare unequal groups from different areas to get the answers they want. There is only emotional appeal when you consider whether life has value or not, because it is not a scientific question. I say this as a man of science and a physician. We do not decline to have murder laws because of scientific facts, but because of emotional and cultural beliefs. Because we impose those values on everyone, its not hard to make the jump to imposing other cultural values on everyone to likewise protect everyone. As as matter of fact, all laws are in effect, the imposition of some form of morality. I would extent those laws to protect 'a human' of any form, even 'a human zygote' as wiki puts it.
I'm sure it is some comfort to the families of women who die in childbirth to know that they were just destined to die anyway. Terminating a pregnancy is a MEANS of coping with their problems in a responsible, healthy manner. Women don't NEED a reason that meets your expectations in order to abort, all they need is to know they don't want to be pregnant or bear a child.
People who die in childbirth are extremely rare, ranging from nearly 0 to 10/100 000 in OECD nations. For people who believe a fetus is a life, its pretty simple. It's a philosophical argument and people arguing to protect all life on that basis have every right to do so. I hope they succeed. It's not about controlling women or any of that BS that pro-abortion groups feed people to make them afraid and angry. Its just about preserving lives. The net gain in lives from non-aborted babies vs maternal mortality is in the hundreds of thousands fold. I know its a debate that will probably go on forever, mainly about the definition of life.
This is an interesting article estimating the number of abortions pre-RvW. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899513,00.html Gynecology: New Grounds for Abortion Friday, May 05, 1967 As Governor John Love signed the bill in front of TV cameras, Colorado last week became the first state to legalize abortion on three principal medical grounds, with appropriate legal safeguards. Until Love's action, most abortions had been illegal in all 50 states. Although 45 states permitted "therapeutic abortion" to save a woman's life, that provision covered only 10,000 legal abortions a year. The total of illegal abortions in the U.S. is estimated at 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 a year, with a high rate of resulting infections and hundreds of deaths And yet another from a different time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,793437,00.html Medicine: Pills & Paste Monday, Mar. 17, 1947 "Have you got anything to help my girl out? She's in trouble." This not uncommon appeal across a drugstore counter spawns one of the world's meanest, lowest rackets. As every druggist knows, the customer who makes this plea is interested in abortion and usually wants a box of pills (often hideously expensive). As every gynecologist knows, pills don't work—and are highly dangerous. Last week the U.S. Food & Drug Administration let it be known that it had launched a determined drive against the thriving abortion-drug trade. Doctors estimate that one U.S. pregnancy out of every three ends in abortion. Some abortions are spontaneous (miscarriages). Some are "therapeutic" (performed to save life). But the vast majority (about 750,000 every year) are illegal. Least likely to succeed are abortions attempted by means of drugs. We can only conclude that the number of abortions varied from time to time, but there were ALWAYS a LOT OF THEM regardless of the illegality.
Unborn baby? Really? As a man of science, a physician, is that really the term to use when discussing the basis of public policy? Have you ever referred to a terminally ill patient or an elderly one as an undead corpse? Actually, valid studies show that abortion demand is reduced by liberal polity not authoritarian approach. Raw data is not a tell all panacea. can you give examples? of course. The only question is if the life of the zygote or fetus up to viability is significant beyond that given to it by the woman making its life possible. If it is, in your view, what is the basis of that significance and is that significance enough to override the woman's right to self determination and freedom to procreate when she wishes? You may very well be that too, but it seem that you are not limiting your argumetns to those aspects only. That is not true. Laws exist to maintain order and security in society. I am sure you will agree that freedom to kill would considerably upset that. That is why duels for honor were ultimately outlawed, since murder has been illegal even then. Not quite. The need to prevent random killing has a far greater universality than opposition to abortion. As such it is not an imposition but rather the acceptance which can not be said about the significance of a fetus. But it is. You are confusing the coincidence of the goals of law with the morality of some as the basis of those laws. At the expense of morality coercion? where will that morality coercion end? What is next, the banning of contraceptives? Oh wait that is already a proposition in Mississippi.
I don't treat zombies. Actually, they don't. Refer to my posts in the other abortion thread to see why. If you have studies you want to cite, go ahead. The basis is that it has the capacity to grow and live as a human being if given the chance, life just like everyone else. That's because the questions what life is, is philosophical. The questions surrounding the other details of pregnancy, abortions, complications etc can be addressed scientifically so in that regard I can so that as well. Laws fundamentally exist because people share a value system and are willing to enshrine the value system of the majority of everybody else. The mass populace, does not make calculated scientific experiments and then determine that murder is wrong. They believe its wrong simply because they believe its wrong. And the elect people that also believe that. the founding colonists of America did not outlaw murder because they required it to stabilize the anarchy they lived in. The society was very stable, and highly value-system motivated. They outlawed it because that was the belief held in regard to it. Well that's really the whole debate. The universality is only to the folks threatened by it. Well the unborn are threatened by abortion, only they can't express it. The easiest to victimize are always targets. But we do this every single day, with many, many different laws. If you think laws are utilitarian without emotion, you must believe we live in a society that is made or robots. We do not. We have laws based on common values. It will always be the morality of some, the majority. Unless everyone is identical, you cannot avoid that. Well we ban pedophilia because of morality coercion, as well as many other things. But one day people will talk about how you are a right-wing nut to restrict an 11-year old from making their own rightful decision about who their sexual partner will be. And so on it goes. Ask yourself this? Do you believe its wrong to force a woman to give birth? If you do, then you are making a statement about right and wrong. That is a moral statement.
Sorry, that doesn't explain its significance at all. They believe murder is wrong because experience shows that it disrupts societal order. Early America had stable societies because groups sharing the same values were isolated from groups with different values. America today is a diverse society with multiple value systems, and our concept of freedom requires us to recognize that those with different value systems must be allowed the same freedom to practice those values as we are to practice ours. Our only common values are to maintain order in society, and rules and laws are passed to that end, NOT to enforce a particular morality. Look, zefs aren't "targets." Unwillingly pregnant women aren't out to GET zefs, they just don't want to be pregnant any more. We do have laws that are based on emotion and morality, but the point is that we're NOT SUPPOSED TO. People keep attempting to pass laws that are not based on the proper role of government...which, in a secular society, is ONLY for the purpose of maintaining order. That is the ONLY common value in our society today. Some might say ensuring justice is a common value goal and a proper goal of government, but tolerating injustice in society will lead to chaos, so it is all one and the same. . It need not be that way. In a society with freedom, different standards can be tolerated and respected, we only need the basic rules to live by which maintain order in society. We ban acts of pedophilia because those acts damage children leading to damaged adults, and damaged adults cause a disruption in order in society. Many people believe it's wrong to try force a woman to give birth because it's not really possible to force a woman to give birth without severely interfering with her civil rights. Interfering with another's civil rights causes chaos in society. Of course, maintaining order in society IS a moral goal (it's also a practical goal, since the survival of society depends upon it), so in that respect ONLY, all laws are morality based.
some of them are even advocating murder up to a two years AFTER they draw their first breath! and babies are being murdered in abortion mills now thru neglect after they survive late term abortions.
ROTFLMAO!!! still at it huh? oh the WOE of the pregnant invalid....all through history, women have been 'incapacitated'; laid low...women never contributed ANYTHING to civilization, how would they have time? I mean, there wasn't any birth control and most of them had babies, thus rendering them completely helpless little waifs... Granny DOES paint a horrible picture of women in general and mothers in particular.
Until that child is born, a man IS nothing more than a sperm donor until the woman decides to make him a daddy. In order to preserve life, you have to control the body of the woman. Umm, no, you don't.
