| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2009 02:20:28 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Nope, not buying it. That's one man's opinion. A child conceived in violence and hate will not be loved as it should be. |
Since the child won't be loved because of their fathers actions, we should kill them.
Rape is a terrible act. If the guilty rapist is caught, do we allow the woman to shoot him because of the emotional relief it would bring her? If not, why should she be allowed to kill her child for the same reason? |
We could easily go round and round on this. I'm not saying it has to be done, just that it is the woman's choice whether to terminate or not. No one else's. And yes, I really believe a rape victim should be given the opportunity to at least cut the rapist's balls off! |
|
|
|
07/27/2009 03:09:05 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You said yourself that Prohibition didn't work, yet cocaine, heroin, marijuana, hashish, and all of the drugs that are now illegal at one point in our history were legal. Why them and not tobacco and alcohol? I'm not the one who instituted that. As I said, I'm certainly not sure what the answer to that one is.... |
It's what it always is -- vested interests protecting their wealth and power.
Check out Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes for a pretty complete history of marijuana in the US.
Originally posted by wikipedia:
Cannabis became illegal in the USA in 1937 due to Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Several theories try to explain why it is illegal in most Western societies. Jack Herer, a cannabis legalization activist and writer, argues that the economic interests of the paper and chemical industry were a driving force to make it illegal.[68][69][70] Another explanation is that beneficial effects of hemp would lower the profit of pharmaceutical companies which therefore have a vital interest to keep cannabis illegal.[71] Those economic theories were criticized for not taking social aspect into account. The illegalization was rather a result of racism directed to associate American immigrants of Mexican and African descent with cannabis abuse.[72] |
For example, hemp was made illegal just about the time DuPont was trying to establish a market for one of its newly-developed artificial fibers, Nylon.
Regardless, I'm waiting to see how you justify telling me (or anyone) what I can or cannot use on a purely arbitrary basis. If I'm a competent adult, shouldn't it be my choice what I do with/to my body? Just asking for some consistency on your part ... that doesn't mean I want you to support the use of anything in particular -- just to support the freedom for each individual to make their own (informed) choices. |
|
|
|
07/27/2009 08:08:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Regardless, I'm waiting to see how you justify telling me (or anyone) what I can or cannot use on a purely arbitrary basis. If I'm a competent adult, shouldn't it be my choice what I do with/to my body? Just asking for some consistency on your part ... that doesn't mean I want you to support the use of anything in particular -- just to support the freedom for each individual to make their own (informed) choices. |
That's just it.....I have tried to tell you a number of times that I'm not the person to ask.
I don't have to justify feelings on the subject one way or the other. What I will do is recuse myself from discussion on the subject *because* of my feelings.
It's really pretty much irrelevant anyway, because someone who wants to use drugs will.
Oh, and by the way, if you think my feelings on the subject are arbitrary, you REALLY haven't been paying attention......8>)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2009 08:10:36 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
...I realise that this is always going to come down to the base argument about exactly when 'a life' or 'a child' can be seen to 'be born'. Such is the crux of the matter.
|
Originally posted by Nullix:
If that's the only thing then:
Originally posted by The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998):
There is no longer any doubt that individual human life begins at conception. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... |
Originally posted by Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968):
It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. |
Originally posted by Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975):
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition. |
Originally posted by Horton (Horton hears a Who 1954):
...a person's a person no matter how small... |
|
So you have cited a few publications that support your stance......hardly the end of the discussion.
What's YOUR view on it and why?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2009 08:17:07 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Rape is a very heinous crime. However, abortion does not un-rape a woman.
It’s actually more harmful for a woman psychologically to have an abortion then to be raped! All things equal, it takes a woman 5 years on average to recover from rape. It takes 7-14 years to recover from abortion.
Originally posted by Dr. Sandra Makhorn (noted author and rape counselor):
The primary problem facing the rape victim is not pregnancy, but the attitudes projected by others: “The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world. This study illustrates that pregnancy need not impede the victims resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy.” |
|
This is such utter garbage I cannot even believe it!
So......you're saying that a woman can bear the product of a rape, bring this child into the world knowing its origin, and reconcile that fact easier than aborting it?
Explain to me how the spawn of a violent, invasive, brutal, animal act is somehow a desirable thing over aborting same.
Even if the ludicrous concept of "getting over the rape faster than the abortion" that you put forth has any merit, you're kind of passing over that this creature now has a life, with all possible genetic mapping to be the same kind of sub-human garbage that its father was.
Kinda don't wanna go there, huh?
Wow....
|
|
|
|
07/27/2009 08:50:06 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Cases of rape, etc, are obviously not covered under this. |
Rape is a very heinous crime. However, abortion does not un-rape a woman.
It’s actually more harmful for a woman psychologically to have an abortion then to be raped! All things equal, it takes a woman 5 years on average to recover from rape. It takes 7-14 years to recover from abortion.
Originally posted by Dr. Sandra Makhorn (noted author and rape counselor):
The primary problem facing the rape victim is not pregnancy, but the attitudes projected by others: “The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world. This study illustrates that pregnancy need not impede the victims resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy.” |
|
The argument presented above is apples to oranges. If you wish to make your point you need to compare Woman raped that where forced to carry the child full term, to Woman raped that chose to abort said pregnancy. Ok Dr. Phil. |
|
|
|
07/27/2009 10:12:04 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
The argument presented above is apples to oranges. If you wish to make your point you need to compare Woman raped that where forced to carry the child full term, to Woman raped that chose to abort said pregnancy. Ok Dr. Phil. |
I'd like to see a show of hands of women who think it's okay that they be required to carry the spawn of a rape.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2009 09:23:37 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Nope, not buying it. That's one man's opinion. A child conceived in violence and hate will not be loved as it should be. |
Since the child won't be loved because of their fathers actions, we should kill them.
Rape is a terrible act. If the guilty rapist is caught, do we allow the woman to shoot him because of the emotional relief it would bring her? If not, why should she be allowed to kill her child for the same reason? |
You are making an appeal to emotion with your choice of words rather than a logical point because your argument does not stand up to any analysis.
Your argument falls apart when you consider that in the vast majority of cases when you talk about a "child" you are referring to a zygote, a few dividing cells invisible without a microscope. The balance is therefore the psychological state of the woman against the potential of a few cells (not the right to life of a child).
The argument for abortion is relatively easy in very early stages of pregnancy - the major obstacles are religious beliefs rather than rational ones.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2009 10:15:58 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Your argument falls apart when you consider that in the vast majority of cases when you talk about a "child" you are referring to a zygote, a few dividing cells invisible without a microscope. The balance is therefore the psychological state of the woman against the potential of a few cells (not the right to life of a child).
|
Finnaly! Someone who dares to say it. At the early stages of pregnancy, it's just a bunch of cells having a party, not even visible. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to a tumor, but... I takes some times to become a separate entity. |
|
|
|
07/28/2009 10:56:35 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Your argument falls apart when you consider that in the vast majority of cases when you talk about a "child" you are referring to a zygote, a few dividing cells invisible without a microscope. The balance is therefore the psychological state of the woman against the potential of a few cells (not the right to life of a child).
|
Prenatal development is so explosive that by the end of the 43rd day, every unborn child has a heart that is beating and a brain that is producing brainwave activity. Since few abortions take place prior to week six every child abortion kills has a functioning heart and brain.
I already quoted Dr Keith Moore, so I'll not bother you by requoting. |
|
|
|
07/28/2009 08:02:11 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Prenatal development is so explosive that by the end of the 43rd day, every unborn child has a heart that is beating and a brain that is producing brainwave activity. Since few abortions take place prior to week six every child abortion kills has a functioning heart and brain. |
I think that the morning after pill is used significantly more often than any other form of abortion. It is usually used within a few days of conception. For other types of abortion in the UK in 2006, nearly 20% of other abortions were at under 6 weeks and 68% were at under 10 weeks.
You appear to have moved your goalposts if your true objection only arises 6 weeks after conception. It is far more sensible to consider "when" not "if" abortion may be acceptable, balancing the growing sentience of the foetus with the rights of the mother. Incidentally, I would never want to be in the situation to contemplate abortion (like most people) and I have a lot of sympathy for those who oppose late term abortion.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2009 10:06:38 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Prenatal development is so explosive that by the end of the 43rd day, every unborn child has a heart that is beating and a brain that is producing brainwave activity. Since few abortions take place prior to week six every child abortion kills has a functioning heart and brain. |
I want to pose two what ifs to you....
What if......YOUR wife was dragged out of her car at a stop light and violently raped by three men and left for dead. Due to a good Samaritan, 911, and modern health care, she survives and will be okay.
Eight weeks later, it's apparent that she has now missed period #2, and passes, or fails, a pregnancy test.
Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't want to abort this child?
Second.....what if.......your child (NOT the one above)is born four months premature, with his lungs outside his body, incapable of breathing on his own, and needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to become a viable human being....
With your belief system, is that child supposed to live? Is the same medical system that can abort a child supposed to mess with natural selection to save a child that will not survive without invasive life-saving techniques?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2009 10:15:04 PM · #113 |
that kid would probably commit suicide someday when he can think for himself.
i mean, how does one grow up knowing his own mother wanted him dead because he isn't like everyone else? |
|
|
|
07/28/2009 10:33:01 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by crayon:
that kid would probably commit suicide someday when he can think for himself.
i mean, how does one grow up knowing his own mother wanted him dead because he isn't like everyone else? |
Which kid would that be?
The one that's the product of a heinous criminal abuse against another human being, or the one who should have died because something when wrong and its mother's womb rejected it?
Message edited by author 2009-07-28 22:34:59.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2009 11:06:28 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by crayon:
that kid would probably commit suicide someday when he can think for himself.
i mean, how does one grow up knowing his own mother wanted him dead because he isn't like everyone else? |
Which kid would that be?
The one that's the product of a heinous criminal abuse against another human being, or the one who should have died because something when wrong and its mother's womb rejected it? |
oops, sorry didnt read the entire thread, but i was just commenting about the original posted news article. |
|
|
|
07/28/2009 11:10:14 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by crayon:
that kid would probably commit suicide someday when he can think for himself.
i mean, how does one grow up knowing his own mother wanted him dead because he isn't like everyone else? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Which kid would that be?
The one that's the product of a heinous criminal abuse against another human being, or the one who should have died because something when wrong and its mother's womb rejected it? |
Originally posted by crayon:
oops, sorry didnt read the entire thread, but i was just commenting about the original posted news article. |
Well, that certainly makes a bunch more sense.......8>)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2009 10:02:13 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Second.....what if.......your child (NOT the one above)is born four months premature, with his lungs outside his body, incapable of breathing on his own, and needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to become a viable human being....
With your belief system, is that child supposed to live? Is the same medical system that can abort a child supposed to mess with natural selection to save a child that will not survive without invasive life-saving techniques? |
I don't want to go cross-threads here,but here in Canada, that wouldn't be a financial problem.
As for your first example, of course I would like my wife to get an abortion, but it's her decision. But if she decide to keep it, I will give that child every bit of love the biological fathers would never be able to, but the child would never find out the truth, never!
As for the bastards.... I'd be very very carefull crossing the streets.... a car accident can happen so fast..... [whistles]
|
|
|
|
07/29/2009 10:49:51 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What if......YOUR wife was dragged out of her car at a stop light and violently raped by three men and left for dead. Due to a good Samaritan, 911, and modern health care, she survives and will be okay.
Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't want to abort this child? |
If this should ever happen, it would be devastating to my wife and my family. However, it isn't the child's fault and having an abortion won't undo the pain and suffering my wife went through.
This baby would still be our child. As a parent, wouldn't you lay down your life for your child? Should we kill our child just to make us feel better?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2009 10:50:20 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Second.....what if.......your child (NOT the one above)is born four months premature, with his lungs outside his body, incapable of breathing on his own, and needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to become a viable human being.... |
Do I have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend? If it could be done, why not? If we don't have the money, then there is no choice.
I was in a car accident that shattered my leg. I spent 1 day in the emergency room and 5 days in intensive care. Medical bills totaling more than $500,000. Luckily I had insurance, otherwise I wouldn't be walking.
Should I have been aloud to live? Why not just put me down like a horse? |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 11:53:42 AM · #120 |
| I'd be curious to know if Jeb feels a man is financially responsible to support a baby if the mother chooses to have it given his assertion that the man has zero (actually "less than zero") choice in the matter... |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 11:57:45 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd be curious to know if Jeb feels a man is financially responsible to support a baby if the mother chooses to have it given his assertion that the man has zero (actually "less than zero") choice in the matter... |
I can't answer for Jeb, but I know for a fact that most (not saying all) won't support it anyway unless they stay in a relationship with the mother. Court orders don't mean crap. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 11:58:40 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Second.....what if.......your child (NOT the one above)is born four months premature, with his lungs outside his body, incapable of breathing on his own, and needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to become a viable human being.... |
Do I have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend? If it could be done, why not? If we don't have the money, then there is no choice.
I was in a car accident that shattered my leg. I spent 1 day in the emergency room and 5 days in intensive care. Medical bills totaling more than $500,000. Luckily I had insurance, otherwise I wouldn't be walking.
Should I have been aloud to live? Why not just put me down like a horse? |
According to some in the healthcare thread, if you didn't have insurance, then yes you should have been put down like a lame horse. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 01:41:46 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
[...]It is far more sensible to consider "when" not "if" abortion may be acceptable, balancing the growing sentience of the foetus with the rights of the mother. Incidentally, I would never want to be in the situation to contemplate abortion (like most people) and I have a lot of sympathy for those who oppose late term abortion. |
I don't know what the law is in the U.K. with respect to third-trimester abortion (and I'm curious if you know), but in the U.S. it is illegal in every state, except where the life or health of the mother is at risk. So when you oppose late-term abortion in the U.S., it means that you support forcing a woman to carry to term a child that has extremely little or no chance of survival, or forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy which may threaten her life. In most states in the U.S. a woman must get two physicians to sign off on a late-term abortion, and they are very rarely done. There seems to be a misconception that third-trimester abortions are "elective" in the same way that early abortions are, and that's just not the case.
My Late-Term Abortion |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 02:27:20 PM · #124 |
That really brought a tear to my eye, what a sad story, I can't begin to even hope understanding the emotional pain this woman went trough. When was it written? Does anyone have a follow-up on that law? |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:07:45 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
That really brought a tear to my eye, what a sad story, I can't begin to even hope understanding the emotional pain this woman went trough. When was it written? Does anyone have a follow-up on that law? |
That also brought a tear to my eye too. Poor kid. I'll have to check, but I hope that law passed.
If you don't know what partial birth abortion is: The woman (over a 2 day period) has her cervix dilated. The doctor reaches in with forceps and pulls out the child up to its head. Then medical scissors are used to open up the skull. Then the child’s brain is sucked out.
That seems a very cruel way to die.
|
|
