milroyj,
And what about all of the other scenarios Mr2001 proposed? Like a woman whose birth control failed.
Milo is right - you’re quite adept at dodging…
Porcupine,
I’m not trying to dodge anything. But it seems that the pro-choice crowd is using extreme examples, i.e. rape, incest, etc. , to justify abortions in general. Why is that?
milroyj:
If you aren’t trying to dodge, you’re sure doing a good job anyway. You haven’t answered a single question I’ve asked.
I would contend that “extreme” examples like rape, incest, and (your post implies you believe this is extreme) birth control failure are the most common reasons for abortion. However, I’ve never seen any statistics, and I would appreciate someone clearing this up.
Why do you think most women choose to have an abortion? Because they’d rather have an expensive, dangerous, controversial abortion than use cheap, safe, easily obtained birth control?
I see what the problem here is.
Here we go. A better hypothetical.
YOU DISAGREE WITH ABORTION 100%, AND WOULD NEVER HAVE ONE
That said, you support a woman’s right to have one, if she chooses.
Given those two facts, should the woman have the safest possible, or should she have to deal with the dangers of the current procedures?
This isn’t about birth control, and you know it. Please, someone tell me why it’s OK to terminate a pregnancy because you’re drunk, or you’ve changed your mind?
milroyj,
So are you saying you have no problem with a woman who has an abortion because her birth control failed?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by agisofia *
**
So what kinda odds will you give me? What’s the line in Vegas?
milroyj:
How about I answer that question after you answer mine?
I’ll restate for your convenience:
[ul]
[li]Suppose you know that a woman is going to have an abortion. She has the choice between a surgical abortion, which may harm or kill her, and RU486, which will not. Both will kill the embryo, of course, but the surgical abortion will also pose a considerable risk to the woman. These are the only two options, and whichever one she chooses is going to happen. Do you believe that one choice is better than the other?[/li][li]If so, which, and why? If not, how do you reconcile this with being “pro-life”?[/li][li]For what reasons do you think most women choose to have an abortion?[/li][/ul]
Come on, prove you aren’t dodging.
BTW, if you answer these, I would prefer to answer your question in a new thread - I kind of like the fact that this thread isn’t the same old abortion debate. Also, please clarify what you mean by “OK”, and point out where I have said that an abortion for those reasons is OK by that definition.
milroy: I haven’t said a word about rape, incest, or the mother’s life being in danger. No need to go that extreme.
-
The potential for a zygote, embryo or early-stage fetus to become a human being does not make it a human being at the present time, while it is in that earlier form.
-
The most important freedom any of us have is the freedom to control our own bodies. A woman, up until the point she does, indeed, have a conscious and viable baby in her womb, has a right to choose whether she will be pregnant. She has an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy up until that point. (And allow me to be pre-emptive. Don’t fire back with, “Well what about the baby’s right to control its body?” See Point 1 above.)
The fact that abortions are legal in this country is a likely indicator that more people agree with the above premises than with the idea that a human being is created when an egg and sperm get together for a few drinks in a piano bar.
I have also heard that any doctor prescribing RU486 must also have the available means to perform a surgical abortion. Even in rural areas, however, virtually all hospitals can and do perform abortions in certain situations, although not all offer abortions-on-demand. Most don’t like to call a lot of attention to this fact, because they want to avoid the disruptions caused by Anti-Choice demonstrators.
Still waiting for a clear, concise answer from milroy or Bob Cos to the following question:
Acknowledging that you are completely opposed to abortion, and *acknowledging women have the legal right to disagree with you and have one *, do you support offering a new method that puts the woman at less medical risk?
Well, I thought I did answer. I have already apologized to Drain Bead for having done so without seeing her post, but I don’t think my position has changed substantially. I’ll try again. My mind is far from resolved on this (as I stated), so I welcome specific feedback (IOW, something more substantial than the grandly clever “dodgeball” comment).
First, just for the record, I am not completely opposed to abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, abortion may be an ethical choice. I believe I understand the nature of your question, though, so I’ll proceed.
Again, in the narrowly defined question you have constructed, there is only one “right” answer (as I said before). If in a given situation the only influence I can exert is to determine whether a blameless individual is placed in greater or lesser peril, I prefer that individual’s risk be minimized. If that is the only moral question associated with the abortion pill, then that would be my answer. There, I’m on the record (as I thought I was previously). But, Drain Bead’s cite notwithstanding, I’m not convinced this is what we face.
Let me clarify. In the article it indicated that “Health experts note” that abortion did not increase as a result of this pill. My first concern: who are the “health experts”? Are they the “Physicians United For Abortion Rights”? On what did they base this conclusion? How were their statistics compiled? The credibility of this source is impossible to consider, given the vagueness. Second, even if abortions in the aggregate remained at the level prior to the introduction of this pill, that does NOT necessarily lead us to conclude there were no incremental abortions as a result. Perhaps abortions would have otherwise decreased. This single line in the article, divorced from any other supporting fact, does not convince me (I acknowledge I have anything specific to refute it).
Before this seems purely knee-jerk contrariness, let me explain my greatest uneasiness with this. I simply can’t fathom how some–perhaps small–increment would NOT be added as a result of this pill. If we accept that surgical abortions are invasive and traumatic, with a real risk associated with them (that’s the basis of your question, so I’m sure you agree), how could eliminating that risk not lead to even a single additional abortion? To agree with this notion (no increase) is, to me, akin to stating that Demand is not inversely related to Cost–it defies accepted logic, doesn’t it? I can’t see how this would be so. Perhaps I’m not thinking through this clearly.
Again, if you want to argue that it would be a small increment, that may be true. But how can there be none? And if this is a possible effect of the abortion pill, then I still think your question is too narrowly constructed to be meaningful. (BTW, if I have missed another cite explaining this, I’m sorry; I wanted to answer the question specifically posed to me, and I’m having trouble keeping up with thread, given its unwieldy size.)
I’ll say it again: this is far from resolved in my mind. But neither is it the simple “Pro-pill = against suffering”/“Against pill = indifferent to suffering” choice you make it out to be.
There. So much for concise, anyway.
Our pastor said this morning that its sad that the “pill” became legal here.
We should have bene praying more and working mroe against it.
I do not believe that christians should stay out of politics.
I also believe it is murder to abort your own child, or pay someone to do so.
Its also legal.
Its a shame that a woman has to abort her child at home!
How scary would that be? What if there were complications?
Life is certainly not worth much nowadays
And yes, if a woman doesn’t want to have a child, for whatever reason, she shouldn’t be having sex.
The instance of those who were raped and having an abortion for that reason is very low.
vanilla:
If you don’t want to be mugged, for whatever reason, you shouldn’t be walking downtown.
If you don’t want to be killed in an accident, for whatever reason, you shouldn’t be driving.
Do you propose that we tell mugging and accident victims “Sorry, we won’t give you any medical attention because you knew what might happen”?
Bob Cos said in an otherwise very interesting and thoughtful post:
I simply can’t fathom how some–perhaps small–increment would NOT be added as a result of this pill. If we accept that surgical abortions are invasive and traumatic, with a real risk associated with them (that’s the basis of your question, so I’m sure you agree), how could eliminating that risk not lead to even a single additional abortion?
Whoa, BC, are you suggesting that some women are deterred from surgical abortion because of the risk compared to the risk of having a baby? Childbirth is far more invasive, traumatic, and risky than early-term abortions are. I really doubt that there are going to be any pregnant women saying “gee, a surgical abortion is so dangerous that I’d rather carry to term, but if I can get an abortion pill instead, I’ll go with the abortion!” Any woman who’s concerned primarily with maximizing her own physical safety is not going to be having a baby at all.
Well, I am saying it’s not settled for me. I think it’s entirely possible that there are some women who would not proceed with a surgical abortion out of concern for the procedure, out of a general inertia associated with making such a step, or for other similar reasons, and as a result would let nature take its course.
I’m not suggesting this is logical or the most common reaction. A pill, I think, just makes it much easier to proceed to the extent there is any hesitancy at all. Again, I have difficulty believing there would be absolutely no increase in abortions as a result of this pill’s availability.
Your point is a good one, though. As I said, it’s just not a settled point for me as it seems to be for some.
Mr. 2001 (and others) asked:
“Suppose you know that a woman is going to have an abortion. She has the choice between a surgical abortion, which may harm or kill her, and RU486, which will not. Both will kill the embryo, of course, but the surgical abortion will also pose a considerable risk to the woman. These are the only two options, and whichever one she chooses is going to happen.”
It’s a ridiculous question designed to get only one answer. I hate playing this card, because it’s pretty silly, but hey, fight fire with fire…
Suppose you know that the Nazi regime is going to eradicate 6 million Jews. They have the choice between a terribly toxic gas which is extremely painful in its business, or a lethal injection, which is painless. Both will kill the Jews, of course, but the gas is extremely painful. These are the only two options, and whichever one they choose is going to happen.
So, are you pro-suffering, or anti-suffering?
Quix
I, for one, say to use the painless lethal injection. But the question really doesn’t work. See…in the abortion debate, you have a possibility of saving the woman from significant pain, or death. You don’t get to save a life with the Nazi torture chamber example.
In both situations (Nazis and abortion), there’s death. Someone earlier noted that the pro-life side should just admit that they oppose abortion in any form, because they view it as taking an innocent. In turn, why doesn’t the pro-choice side admit that they favor RU-486 because they support abortion rights, and are throwing in safety of the mother to confuse the issue?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hardcore *
**
I don’t know, let me call the sports book at the Stardust…
This one might be off the board…