Exactly. You don’t PLAN to get into a car accident, even if you follow all the rules of the road, drive safely, and plan your trip to avoid heavy congestion. But it can still happen. You can’t control all situations. You don’t know that the condom isn’t defective. But you are (or should be) willing to accept the risk of pregnancy when engaging in sexual activity, protected or not.
Yes, it’s a possible consequence. Now can you tell me why people who don’t desire to have that consequence should forgo the alternatives?
You missed my point. What I said was that even if your reasoning (if you have sex, you have to be willing to accept pregnancy and have a kid even if you don’t want to) appeals to you, but it won’t appeal to anyone in that situation.
For example: I use condoms, and my girlfriend is on birth control. If something really disastrous happens and both methods fail, are you seriously suggesting that we (21 and 20 respectively) should be forced to have a child and perhaps give it up for adoption - and I think you’re underestimating the difficulty most people have in doing so - because we ‘chose to accept the risks?’ I say bull. We’re not in a position to care for a child, since we’re too young, both still in school, and probably not looking at jobs that would be suitable for that situation. So you have two young, unprepared people who didn’t want a child, who will likely be forced to take low-paying jobs (multiple ones, if we’re like other people) and depend heavily upon family and society, and a child with inexperienced, confused parents barely scraping by financially. Who is this good for? I suppose you’ll tell me it’s good for the child, even though I bet it would preclude the children we’d planned to have later, who would be better off in all aspects (parents who are ready, wanted them, have educated themselves about the subject, have steady jobs, etc.). Not to say that everybody born under such circumstances amounts to nothing, but you would FORCE people into that situation?
You’d probably be looking at a lot of that in an abortion-free America, and that’s avoiding the issue of back-alley abortions. Like it or not, that is unquestionably a bad situation for parents and children, and there are too many people in it as it is. The one way in which the girlfriend and I are probably an exception is that we’re both using birth control. That’s a big difference, granted, and there’s too much unprotected sex going on among young people. I expect we agree about that. But the fact that people don’t think about the consequences doesn’t mean they should be forced to accept them when there’s a better alternative. In fact, if people are unable to think ahead in that manner, that’s probably a very good sign that they’re not ready to be parents!
You’re right, people should accept the consequences of their actions and be prepared. Guess what? Often, they don’t, and they’re not, and that’s life for you. The proper thing to do, if people are going behave that way (which they are and always will) is to minimize the damage. This isn’t just a matter of principle, practicality has to come in. If you think it’s better for millions of people to have children they don’t want - and even if you can put your kids up for adoption, pregnancy is still expensive, painful and difficult - than for them to have abortions and wait, I can only say I don’t understand. If I’m wrong about the foster system now - and I may be, I’m not an expert - then what do you think will happen if the amount of people having kids and putting them up for adoption suddenly jumps overnight?
Abortion is a sad circumstance, but I think it beats this argument based on using the life of a child as a punishment. I thought the party line was that kids are a joy or a miracle or something. :rolleyes: Parenting is probably the hardest job in the world, and in general the only people who should accept that enormous responsibility are those who WANT it, because they’re the one who will do the job right.
Yes, I can. “Forgoing the alternatives” ensures that no harm comes to an individual that had no part in the action that brought about the consequence.
Whether the acceptance of consequence is “appealing” to me, you, or anyone else is irrelevant. We have no choice in life but to accept the consequences for our actions.
Well, I guess it seems like a stretch to you for whatever reason to accept the fate you chose for yourselves, but yes, not only am I suggesting it, but the value of human life demands it.
Obviously, you do.
Then there’s a simple solution to this problem if giving the child up for adoption isn’t an option for you… Stop participating in the activity that has a possible consequence of pregnancy.
No, I wouldn’t “force” anybody into that situation. After all, I’m not the one that decided that you two would have sexual intercourse. You decided that all on your own, and if you’re going to partake in grown-up activities, then you need to be prepared to deal with grown-up realities.
We do, but I doubt that we would agree that the fact that legalized abortion is an indirect promotion to sex among young people.
Let’s apply that logic to other aspects of life:
I might not think about the consequences of cheating on a test, so that doesn’t mean I should be forced to accept the failing grade I receive when the better alternative is for the teacher to let me slide so I won’t have to repeat the class.
I might not think about the consequences of driving while intoxicated, so that doesn’t mean I should be forced to accept the judgement of losing my license when the better alternative is for the judge to just let me go free so I can still drive.
There are many other examples of how this logic is flawed.
So just tossing out personal responsibility and acceptance of consequence with the flippant “that’s life for you” is the answer?
The “proper thing to do” is to encourage the acceptance of personal responsibility, practicality be damned. In doing this, people will eventually get it through their thick skulls that a particular action that carries with it the possibility of a life-changing consequence just might not be the best activity for them to engage in at that particular time in their life. The argument that “everyone’s doing it so we might as well minimize the damage” is fundamentally flawed.
It’s called accepting personal responsibility no matter what the cost. Again, the solution to the problem is agonizingly simple - if you can’t deal with a child in your life at this time, then stop having sex.
The hundreds of thousands of parents waiting to adopt will then have the opportunity to provide happy homes for children that would have otherwise been sucked into a vacuurette and destroyed in a furnace. Call me crazy, but I guess I just don’t see the problem with that.
It is a sad circumstance indeed that we as a society can even entertain the idea of abortion on ANY LEVEL, much less defend it in a debate. As for the punishment aspect, you call it “punishment”, I call it “consequence”, but the bottom line is that we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences of our own actions.
They are to most people, and for the rest, there is adoption.
I’ve never heard a better argument for the adoption over abortion debate! Kudos to you!
I don’t buy that a fetus or embryo is “an individual” or that preventing birth is harming something that is not cognizant.
The problem here is there we obviously do have another choice, you just don’t like it. Abortion is not a cost-free thing that people shirk off, your implications to the contrary. It has its own set of consequences.
I’m not a “fate” guy. More to the point, I wish you’d stop speaking in the moral imperative of what human life “demands” and what fate “demands” and what consequences “demand.” We plainly have different views on the subject and couching it in such language seems odd to me. It’s not a matter on which debate has been closed, because plainly we’re here debating it.
You would certainly force people into that situation by forcing women who do not wish to be pregnant to carry a child to term. Be honest about it. You’re not forcing anyone to have sex, and you’re not forcing anyone to keep the child instead of put it up for adoption, but you’ve plainly forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant for nine months and give birth.
If nothing else, there is the monetary cost to consider - the costs of being pregnant, the medical bills for pregnancy and birth and the time at work a pregnant woman will miss. You’re pretending that the option you don’t like doesn’t exist.
You’re right about that. Abortion isn’t birth control, condoms, the pill, the patch, Depo-Provera and so forth are birth control. So I don’t see how it promotes sex. It’s a last resort, and I’ve never seen any data to the contrary.
The problem with all your examples is this: there is no teacher or judge saving people. Someone having an abortion is not being bailed out by an authority figure. Again, you’re implying people who have abortions do so in a carefree manner with nary a regret or second thought. That’s silly.
Those four words may be flippant, but that was an intentionally quick summary and the rest of the post plainly was not. Please don’t pull things out of context.
I think there’s a big contrast between this sentiment and the one I highlighted above.
“Practically be damned” actually resolves the debate for me: you’re not interested dealing with the world as it is, you just want to make moral pronouncements. Fine. I’d rather figure out what is best for people in the real world. The ‘practicality be damned’ attitude is what brought America Prohibition, the foolish, unsuccessful Drug War, and the horrors of back-alley abortions, among other things. You say that if you shout at people long enough, it’ll become obvious to them that you’re right. I wish you the best of luck with that.
I quite like free and open debate, even on topics I find unpleasant. It’s a staple of democracy. But at least you’re honest about the fact that you’d rather have your vision of morality enforced by law.
All you’ve said here is that you prefer a different term. You haven’t challenged the idea in the least, so I continue to object that children be used as an albatross around the necks of people who made a poor decision.
I’m glad you like that bit, I was rather happy with it myself. But I fail to see how it endorses your point of view. In case you misunderstood, let me reiterate: people who have abortions and people who put their children up for adoption are alike in their decision that they are not prepared or desirous of raising a child. As such, neither of them wants the job, and forcing them to have it (as you would do for the former)
How convenient for you! The easiest way out of accepting this fact is to dismiss it.
That’s not at all the case. You may choose to stop engaging in sexual intercourse at your own leisure.
It’s certainly not “cost free”! Just ask the aborted fetus.
I can certainly see how being reminded of the moral imperatives would be uncomfortable for you. Sorry, but I’ll continue to remind you as long as you continue to participate in this debate.
I’m being perfectly honest about it. Those who engage in sexual intercourse know the ramifications of what could happen because of it. Thus, those people should do one of two things: 1) bear the burden (punishment, if you will) of their actions, or 2) not do the action in the first place. In a society that places human life above all other morals and values, this should not even need be discussed.
Yep, just like you would force me to bear the burden (punishment, if you will) of my actions if something I did had a negative impact upon you, an innocent third party. Accepting consequence sucks, doesn’t it?
Not at all! I know it exists, and I know that it’s a huge problem for someone who can’t afford it. Oh, wait a minute! That’s part of accepting responsibility, once again! Besides, the state will pretty much foot the bill for a mother that can’t afford to have a baby.
Then let me illustrate for you by giving you the thought process that might go through a young couple’s mind:
“Hey, let’s do it!”
“But I’m not on the pill!”
“It’ll be okay, don’t worry.”
“Well, what if I get pregnant?”
“We can always get an abortion.”
“Oh, yeah, I forgot.”
How many times do you think the above conversation, or some variation of it has taken place? Do you think this couple considers the consequences of having an abortion? Having legal abortion as an option is not a deterrent, especially to younger individuals simply because they don’t KNOW how difficult it might be to have one. I doubt that many women have abortions in a “carefree manner”, although I’d be willing to wager that the human race is becoming more callous to the reality of what abortion really is.
Please don’t act as if you are insulted by my commentary of your responses. Words mean things. If you don’t mean it, don’t write it.
Wrong again. Not only am I interested in dealing with the world as it is, I’m willing to change it. You just seem to be happy with the way things are. Complacency is not a virtue.
Not to follow your attempt to divert the topic to other issues, but how did practicality have anything to do with Prohibition or the War on Drugs?
Thank you. Actually, I said nothing of the sort, but I’ll accept your wish of good luck nonetheless.
Just as you are honest about having your vision of immorality enforced by it.
Object and proclaim 'til you’re blue in the face, if that makes you feel better. The fact of the matter is that neither the word “punishment” or “consequence” changes the meaning of the acceptance of personal responsibility. Arguing terminology is simply another transparent method of removing the spotlight from the meat of the discussion.
I don’t think I misunderstood, but thank you for taking the time to restate the fact that adoption is a better alternative than abortion, and as such should BE the alternative that people who are not in the position to raise the child that they helped create.
Were you trying to say something else? My browser seems to have cut you off after the parentetical expression above.
It’s not a fact, it’s an opinion. I’ve read too many abortion debates here to just be told it’s a fact that a fetus is a person.
Of course I can. That’s not what I was talking about with that quote, though.
I agree, it’s not cost free, as that’s exactly what I said. You seem to think the parents pay no price, that was my objection.
You’re playing the guardian of everybody else’s morality again. It’s not uncomfortable for me at all. I don’t believe in fate, and we CLEARLY disagree about the morality here. What I’m annoyed by is your way of being so high-handed about everything. I know you think you know what is right and that I am clueless on the subject. It’s still a bit disrespectful when you make it so obvious.
But it is, and it will be for a long time. Even if you had your way and abortion was outlawed tomorrow, the debate would not go away, so please stop bemoaning the fact that it’s a topic of discussion.
People having abortions has a negative impact upon you? Please explain how.
Do you mean in your world without abortion, or in today’s world? Because I don’t think so.
There’s the morning pill and a few other options even after sex. I understand what you think the thought process of a hypothetical couples might be. What I said is 1) I don’t think anybody actually thinks that, and 2) are you seriously suggesting that people use abortion as a method of contraception over the dozens of easier methods? (More on this further down.)
Not too often, in my estimation.
While they’re thinking about getting it on? No. In the weeks that follow, it’d be impossible not to.
Abortion isn’t supposed to be a deterrant to sex. It’s a last-ditch option to avoid unwanted or potentially dangerous pregnancies. There should be deterrants to sex, mind you; sex education is a must and it should in fact reduce the number of abortions.
Maybe, though I’d counter-wager you might be a bit callous as to what the reality was prior to Roe v. Wade.
I’m not happy with how it is, nor am I complacent on the issue. If I was complacent, I wouldn’t be arguing about it. I’m happy teen pregnancy is on its way down, however.
And that’s a fact I’d love to see you explain, by the way. You say abortion encourages kids to have unprotected sex. If that’s true, shouldn’t teen pregnancy be on the way up? It’s not. The number of women choosing to have abortions (younger ones in particular) is down across the board. Here’s a cite for that. If abortion encourages people to have sex, shouldn’t more people be having sex, and thus having more abortions?
Yes, that’s just what I was doing. I’m so defeated… :rolleyes: Here’s what I was getting at: prohibiting abortion is in my opinion dealing with principles instead of practicality. The same is true of the Prohibition efforts in this country, and of the War on Drugs. Prohibitionists said (in essence) “Alcohol is bad, and if we outlaw it, people will see our point of view, stop drinking it and will never want to drink it again.” Both were/are complete failures because of that approach.
I’m not basing my argument on morality alone here. Nor am I attempting to have a vision of immorality (doesn’t make sense anyway, as I’m not generally an anti-moralist) enforced by law. Abortion isn’t enforced by law, nor has anybody argued it should be. It’s protected by law for the relatively few people who want it.
Fortunately, you’re much too smart for that. I was trying to explain to you that you’ve NEVER answered the question. You changed “punishment” to “accepting the consequences,” which is often a euphemism for punishment anyway, and seemed to think that was it. A one-word answer will do: does it bother you at all that you’re using children as a punishment for a mistake?
I never said adoption was a bad thing or a bad alternative. I’m not sure quite how that comment became a comparison of the two.
MAV:
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility. Having a kid you can’t take care of is manifestly irresponsible. I think it’s sad tht you see pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. Guess what, women do not have to justify their sexual behavior to you nor are they obligated to accept your personal definition of what constitues “responsibility.” It is every woman’s right to have completely reckless and thoughtless sex, get pregnant, and terminate the pregnancy without a second thought. At no point does this ever become your business.
Which elevates the debate to the next logical step: when, exactly, does a fetus become a person?
Oddly, I agree with you. I AM playing the guardian of morality when it comes to abortion simply because somebody has to step in to safeguard the rights of the unborn since nobody wielding a scalpel and a copy of Roe v. Wade seems to be willing to even consider that the unborn have rights at all.
I am a part of society. Legalized abortion is one of the many steps in the decline of the morality of our society. Thus, I am negatively impacted by this step in the decline of the morality of the society in which I live.
[quote]
Maybe, though I’d counter-wager you might be a bit callous as to what the reality was prior to Roe v. Wade.
[quote]
You mean back before the forty-some-odd million abortions?
Me, too.
I said, “abortion is an indirect promotion to sex among young people,” meaning that they could justify having unprotected sex on the basis of using abortion as the last way out of an accidental pregnancy. I do not think, nor imply that legalized abortion is THE primary encouragment young people use to finally begin having sex.
There are a vast number of factors that could influence why kids are or are not choosing to have sexual intercourse in lower numbers as of late. Abortion could factor into some of those issues. It may have no bearing. I simply do not know. Do you?
No.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
MAV:
Stating that the sky is pink makes about as much sense as that statement.
I think it’s sad that you don’t see abortion as a punishment to the baby.
Really? You think so?
So I guess that makes it all okay then! I’m glad you cleared that up for me. I fear that without your colossal input to this conversation I might not remember to draw breath or keep my fingers out of light sockets.
I know you’re talking to Diogenes here, but facing the options in a given situation and make a choice IS taking responsibility. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is dealing with her own situation. It just happens to be in a manner you disapprove of, not that I expect you to ever acknowledge such. Having the government step in with legislation and tell everyone how to act in a given circumstance does not encourage personal responsibility.
As he is wont to do, Diogenes answered this more briefly than I could: you are entitled to your opinion, but some facets of other people’s lives - especially their sex lives - are absolutely none of your business. The idea that a private decision affects you personally because you say it decreases overall morality sounds like an attempt to justify nosiness and bossiness.
Your policy seems to be “think of the fetus first and the mother not at all (except to condemn her for getting pregnant),” but I bet you’re aware that before abortion was legal, women often got it in illegal and/or unsafe ways that sometimes got them killed. Or is that just “facing the consequences?” There is not a shadow of a doubt your version of morality would also cause people to die. They would just be women instead of fetuses (though the fetus wouldn’t survive if the woman dies anyway), and thus far you seem completely uninterested the effects of your ideas on people who are already living.
It seems to me the fact that abortion is declining among young people would mean they are not using it to justify unprotected sex. Or if they are, that there is miraculously no corresponding increase in teen pregnancies ending in abortions.
I don’t know if fewer teens are having sex. I’m trying to find some stats on whether that is increasing or decreasing, but I haven’t found the answers so far. What I said is that abortion among kids is definitely on the downswing, and I think this contradicts your claim that it is used as a method of birth control and promotes (directly or indirectly) teen sex. As of 1999, a majority of teenage girls who got pregnant gave birth. To me, that says they’re not using it as birth control.
From that page - “Steep decreases in the pregnancy rate among sexually experienced teenagers accounted for most of the drop in the overall teenage pregnancy rate in the early-to-mid 1990s. While 20% of the decline is because of decreased sexual activity, 80% is due to more effective contraceptive practice.”
That data also indicates to me that abortion is not being used as a means of birth control. Contraceptive use is up, abortions are not, so I don’t think it’s being used as a substitute and I don’t see evidence it’s promoting unprotected sex. Can you provide any?
Reactive responsibility is vastly inferior to proactive responsibility, and that’s not even taking into account the human life that is being destroyed by the abortion. Proactively, she could choose not to have unprotected sex. Reactively, she could choose to have an abortion. Since abortion is generally easier than carrying a baby to term and delivering it, AND since it is a legal alternative that women now have, then more women choose to have an abortion than give their baby up for adoption.
I do acknowledge that I disapprove of the manner in which many women (and couples - this isn’t just about women) “deal with their own situation”, which is abortion.
By the same token, people do not exercise personal responsibility in many circumstances, which is why we have government legislation in the first place. The government is generally regarded as an institution set up to, among other things, protect the rights of the innocent. This is why I support a ban of abortion. By making the practice illegal, the rights of the innocent are protected.
You and he are absolutely right. My suggestions that people ought not to have sex if they do not want to become pregnant are just that - suggestions. I would never imply that I or the government should have control over what goes on in the bedroom. However, once that action leads to the creation of another human being, then the issue of people’s sex lives is over and done with. It has moved on to a bigger issue, which is the protection of the innocent that I mentioned above. You’ve said yourself that pregnancy and abortion are issues that come after the fact. Thus, your reminder to me that people’s sex life is none of my business, while true, is irrelevant.
What is morality if not the codificaiton of values and ethics that place the highest value on human life? What is abortion if not a method of placing the value of convenience and irresponsibility above that of human life? Thus, abortion is simply immoral, and the acceptance of immorality into society will ultimately affect us all. No, abortion does not and will not affect me (it could have - thankfully, my unwed mother didn’t have the legal option of abortion at the time of my birth), but its acceptance will set precedents that will eventually lead to the legalization of other unthinkable acts against human life.
I do care for the safety and well-being of the mother. It would be my hope that she would have a safe and healthy pregnancy. I would even be willing to use some of my tax dollars to promote the health of the mother and baby in this regard. However, as you’ve pointed out, if it’s none of my business what she decides to do with her body in regard to terminating her pregnancy, why then do you imply that I should be concerned if the legal and safe option isn’t available to her?
You’re attempting to get me to say that my concern lies not with the mother, but with the fetus. You’re attempts are not in vain, because that’s exactly what I’m saying. When a woman goes so far as to put her own wants above the life of the fetus, then I cease to care about what she thinks and feels, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that it was her own irresponsibility that created the fetus in the first place. Now, we’re back to “proactive personal responsibility” once again.
There’s also not a shadow of a doubt that my version of morality would not only cause LESS people overall to die, but it would cause MUCH LESS than the 40 million babies to be terminated over the next twenty years that have been aborted in the last twenty. When you can show me that the overall sum of the death of mothers and unborn children in the United States will somehow RISE due to a ban of abortion, then I’ll place some stock in your suppositions.
By the way, what are the numbers of deaths due to clandestine abortion attempts before 1973?
Quite the contrary, I place value on ALL human life. We as humans do not have – or at least we SHOULD not have – the luxary of deciding who gets to live and who doesn’t. Since the fetus is “already living”, then their life should be protected as well.
Well, the ratio of abortions to pregnancies in the under 20 age group are going down, that’s for sure - according to your data, they’ve dropped a whopping 11% since 1984. Back then, two out of five pregnancies ended up in abortion. In 1999, it was ONLY one in three !!! :eek: :mad:
The fact that ONE IN THREE pregnant teenage girls has an abortion means absolutely nothing to you, does it?
I didn’t mean to imply that it is used as a method of birth control. It does “control birth”, but not in the sense that we are using it here. What I meant by my statements regarding its “indirect promtion” is that it’s a failsafe - a catchall. If everything else fails, one can still legally terminate the pregnancy, thus giving an excuse to go ahead and have sex.
Other than the data provided above?
Most laws have nothing at all to do with morality, they are attempts to make society run smoothly (if anything). And thank goodness for that.
What would banning abortion do if not give those who have not been born rights at the expense of those already living?
“Thus” nothing. The previous comments don’t demonstrate abortion is immoral, they simply restate your argument that it is. Even if you had proven that, I don’t think you’d be able to prove that private immorality affects people who are not involved and would have no way of knowing about it.
The point is that the factual data don’t support your stand about abortion encouraging unprotected sex. You’re also ignoring a clear trend that says things aren’t as bad as you suggest, since if the trend has continued - which I’m 99% sure it has - abortions have declined every year for 15 years.
Not in the slightest. I wish it was lower, but it’s going down and I suspect it will continue to do so.
I know what you meant. I think the data demonstrates that it’s not being used that way. You’re arguing that abortion indirectly encourages children to have unprotected sex. If more children are having unprotected sex, shouldn’t more of them be getting pregnant and having abortions? Am I misunderstanding you there? Kids are clearly NOT having more abortions, they’re having LESS of them. If abortion is a failsafe and an encouragement to having sex, what does it mean if fewer people are having abortions?
The number of women under 20 having abortions declined every single year from 1988 to 1999, and the number of pregnancies in that group decreased every year after 1989. Women under 20 had 406,370 abortions in 1988. In 1999, the year with the most recent data, the figure was 249,660, and I bet once we see more recent data it’ll be even fewer. If my math is right, by 1999 that was a decline of 38%. The peak year for abortions in that group, 1979, saw 460,820 abortions. The 1999 number was about 46% less. It seems that women are being smarter about sex, and you’ve said abortion indirectly encourages them to take more risks. How do you explain the disparity here?
If you think the data I provided support your view, you need to explain why.
My postulate was specifically based upon laws that deal with placing value on and about human life, i.e. laws against murder, theft, assault, drunk driving, etc. This discussion has nothing to do with laws against double-parking, tax evasion, and garbage dumping. In that regard, morality is most definitely codified in our laws.
Sly, but transparent. “Those who have not been born” are just as alive and have just as many rights (if not more) as “those already living”. An individual begins life at conception. If this is not the case, then I would ask you (again) to give me the time at which it does begin.
- Morality is codified in laws that protect human life.
- Abortion is a legal action that destroys human life.
- “Thus”, although legal, abortion is immoral.
Good god, man! I’ve never once said or implied that it is a prime coersion for sex! I did state (and restate) that it is an “indirect promotion”. How can I make this any clearer?
You’re assuming that the implication of my argument of the indirect encouragement of sex that legal abortion provides is THE determing factor of whether more or less teenagers have sex. It’s not, and it was never stated that way. There are many, MANY more factors that would have more of a direct influence (sex education, changing styles, fear of STD’s, etc.). Obviously those factors are changing the number of teens having sex in a positive manner. That still does not preclude that in any given possible sexual encounter, the idea that abortion is a legal “last resort” could play a role in whether or not the individuals decide to go through with the sexual encounter. “Thus”, I stand by my original statement.
See above.
Again, see above. I don’t know how else to impress upon you that while abortion is not the primary deciding factor of whether or not a couple decides to have intercourse, it can and does factor in to some potential encounters, however few. This was my original point, and it is still a valid assumption.
Whether intentionally or otherwise, you’ve not addressed a few issues I’ve raised. I’ll repeat the questions:
On what basis do you say they have more rights? I presume the answer is ‘the moral one’ again, since legally that’s nonsense.
I was going to say I was surprised by the notion the unborn have more rights than the living. But it actually is consistent with the traditional anti-abortion way of thinking to say “protect them in the womb, screw 'em once they’re out.” So I applaud your consistency in saying people deserve to lose rights just because they happen to be alive.
Um… birth? I find it strange that this is a radical notion to some. If I die someday, the first date on my tombstone will be the day I was born, not the day I was conceived (just like 100% of the people who have ever lived, I might add, or those with their dates on the tombstones anyway). Which nobody can know for sure anyway, since pregnancies are not clockwork. 
:smack: I didn’t say I was confused by your logic. I have said you have not backing up two key notions: 1) that abortion is immoral and 2) that it destoys human life. Here you say “It’s immoral because it destroys human life.” I’m pretty sure that’s begging the question.
Oh, okay. Abortion is a factor, it’s just a very minor one. And if your assessment is ever true, it’s in a very small number of cases. So it is not a valid assumption at all, because you have no data to support it, and you’ve now admitted that even if the assumption is true, it’s not a big factor.
The old-fashioned way people become people: by being born. This idea that fetuses are people is VERY recent, so it amuses me a little that you’re acting as if I’m making a strange or radical argument when I say they are not people. The unborn are exactly that. They’re not born, and because miscarriages can happen, you don’t know for a fact a that a human life will begin until birth happens. It’s not a perfect division, but in my view it’s the most logical one by lightyears. If you start saying a fetus is a person with as many - nay, more! - rights as a living person, shouldn’t they be counted on the census? Should women pregnant with twins get to drive in the carpool lane because there are three people in the car?
The law doesn’t treat fetuses and embryos as people, with the limited exception of a few murder cases, because there are obvious differences. More to the point, if life begins before birth, where does it begin? Conception? A huge chunk of conceptions never attach to the uterine wall and are menstruated out, so a massive number - one that dwarfs the number of abortions - ends up in the toilet at the end of the woman’s cycle. (By the way, should that crime be manslaughter or murder?) Are you telling me with a straight face that blastocysts are people? Or that zygotes and embryos are people? If you were arguing that a fetus is a person once it’s old enough to survive out of the womb, I wouldn’t agree but I’d admit it’s something to consider. Of course, technology progressively allows more premature babies to survive, so I imagine that even if you took that more reasonable stand, you’d probably end up telling me zygotes are people at some time in the future.
Your idea would be to eliminate a legal and safe option and force women into a position where some would take an illegal and unsafe option, so you’d better be concerned. If you undertake an action that you know for certain will result in people being killed and hurt, you bear some responsibility for what happens to them. But you should only be concerned if you have the compassion you profess to have. Of course, it’ll be a non-issue if you choose to say you have none.
Any figures I could find would probably be wholly unscientific guesses. Abortion was illegal, and “abortion attempt” is not a cause of death, so I’m not sure how you’d find this out. Does it matter? Unless you’re trying to say there were NO deaths or instances of severe harm caused by abortion attempts prior to Roe v. Wade, I don’t think it matters.
I didn’t STATE that they had more rights, I SUPPOSED that they COULD, if one so chose to head down that road. Since you’ve obviously chosen to do so, I’ll simply say that I could find myself in agreement with the argument that the fetus has more of a right to be protected than the mother simply because the fetus did nothing to cause the sometimes undesirable state of pregnancy. The same cannot be said for the mother.
Hmm… I’m glad to see that we base our life timetable on what’s going to be on our tombstones. Any other scientific methods you’d like to throw out there for us?
I’ve backed these ideas up with plenty of substance. So far, all you’ve offered to the contrary is basically “I don’t agree.” I suppose the element we’ll be debating now is when life begins.
The next postulate is quite interesting. First you say …
… which is nothing more than an assumption because you cannot produce empirical data to substantiate it, but then you comment upon my assumption by saying …
Your challenge that my assumption is invalid based on the lack of data to support it lacks data to support it! So, which assumption is valid and which is not?
This is the 21st century, man! If you’d like to discuss “old-fashioned” ideas, perhaps we could go back to the times that when women got pregnant, they actually carried and delivered the baby! :eek:
So are the breakthroughs in medical science that allow children to live outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages of development. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?
I haven’t acted that way yet. I’m about to, though. Read on!
What does being unborn have to do with when life starts? Is the unborn child not alive?
If it’s not a perfect division, then why not strive for the perfect division? Logic would dictate that individual human life begins when that which defines it (i.e. DNA, the basic “building blocks” of life) comes into being. If that happens at birth and not conception, then I’ve been reading the wrong books all my life.
More of that scientific method, I see.
Do we normally use law, tombstones, and carpools to determine the answer to scientific questions, or do we normally use science?
GREAT QUESTION, and one that should be (although, sadly, the law has given you the easy way out so it’s not) incumbant upon pro-abortionists to answer. Since you have the “out” given by law, I doubt that you, like just about every other pro-abortionist I’ve debated with, will give this grave question much thought and effort. It’s much easier to simply dismiss it and go on happily and legally.
Sorry if I’ve stereotyped you with the rest of them. I would be happy to find out that you are different.
Data to support that claim?
And, it’s not that I don’t believe you about the menstruation issue – I do know that a large number of fertilized eggs do not attach to the uterine lining for whatever reason, but the claim that this number is higher than the number of abortions is probably unsubstantiatable (is that a word?), and I’d ask you to either back up this claim with data or rescend it.
How is it a crime? The process of miscarriage is something that occurs naturally within the mother, unlike abortion which is the manual, premature destruction of the blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, or child, that lives within the mother.
I’m telling you with the most sincerety and gravety that any fertilized human egg is human life, and abortion is a process by which humans more advanced in life destroy the life of those who are less advanced in it.
I’m not arguing that not only because my standpoint that life begins at conception makes it irrelevant, but because there is no way to pinpoint the exact time in the stages of individual fetal development that a fetus will live once removed from the mother. When dealing with such concepts we must err on the side of caution, meaning we cannot assume that it’s not viable when deciding whether or not to destroy it anyway.
What is the one common characteristic that all people have? It’s called “life”, and until you can tell me the exact point in time that we, as people, change from a state of not being alive to a state of being alive, then I’ll assume that life begins at the time before which there is no doubt that we do not have life, and after which there is no doubt we do have life, and that time is conception.
HA! You’re now blaming ME for the harm that women might choose to do to themselves?! That kind of logic leads to the ideas that car manufacturers are responsible for people being killed and hurt in vehicle accidents, that cigarette companies are responsible for people contracting emphysema and lung cancer from the use of their product, and that McDonalds is responsible for burning your legs with hot coffee!
Think again, my friend! I know this is a day and age of blaming others for all of one’s problems, but that proverbial dog won’t hunt here.
I have stated that I care for the well-being of the mother during her pregnancy. I have even stated that I wouldn’t object to tax dollars being used to care for her during this time. What more can I say?
It’s not like that’s stopped you from guessing before now.
It matters greatly when we talk about the sheer numbers of human lives being lost due to the legality of abortion compared to the numbers of lives lost when it was not legal. But, of course, you are of the mind that whatever the “thing” inside the womb is, it’s not alive, so I guess it doesn’t matter to you.
I harped on that argument because I found it patently absurd. In no scenario does someone get EXTRA rights.
I don’t consider “Abortion is immoral” substance. What other substance have you given?
I was trying to be polite. I’ve seen no evidence that your scenario is EVER true, and you’ve given none.
Which assumption? I was talking about the same one both times. The assumption in question was “Abortion leads indirectly to unprotected sex.” I said that because the data I provided contradict your claim, it is probably untrue. But because it’s impossible to prove a negative, I added that if abortion is EVER an incentive to have sex, it seems it would be in such a small number of cases as to be statistically significant, because the data doesn’t say it’s happening.
That might be the most irrelevant thing you’ve said so far. Are you suggesting you’re only changing the definition of ‘alive’ because women more frequently have abortions now?
It’s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t pertain to my comment. The idea that is the bedrock of your argument - that fetuses are people (and as such have as many or more rights than their mothers) - is a new one and is not enshrined in medicine or law. That’s what I was saying.
No, it’s not. Why are you even asking that? I already stated my apparently bizarre, which is that life begins at birth.
Because it doesn’t exist except in your fantasy world.
If you’re going to avoid arguing by pretending I mean comments like those to be taken literally, let me know so I can quit wasting my time. As it is, everyone has abandoned this thread except for you and I.
It’s pretty annoying when people say they’re sorry when they’re not. Why waste the time typing it?
It’s not encumbent upon me to prove life begins at birth. That’s something that’s been accepted as fact for all of human history. I think it’s encumbent upon you to prove it begins at conception. You’ve not provided any cites for anything you’ve said so far, so this might be a great time for the first one.
http://jalananil.tripod.com/NIRMAN/id12.html
"15 - 20 % of all pregnancies will endup as early prenancy losses. These losses however, are those recognised pregnancies which are confirmed usually 4 to 5 weeks after conception. There is now evidence that the pregnancy loss rate before this period i.e., during the 2 to 3 weeks following conception, may be as high as 50%.
“2. Fifty percent of fertilised ova do not progress to a viable pregnancy.”
There are about six million pregnancies in America every year. That wouldn’t count those that terminate after two or three weeks. It’s definitely an estimate, but even if we conservatively shave the figure way down to 33%, that means 2 million pregnancies ended at that stage. And that’s a good deal more than the amount of abortions in this country last year, which was apparently a little over 1 million.
How is it not a crime? The fetus has a right to be born!
“Yes” would have been shorter.
That’s very convoluded and very illogical. If you’re trying to err on the side of caution, a scientific basis of some sort might help. What features demonstrate to you that life is present?
Yep. Women choose to have abortions now because it’s safe and legal. If you make them illegal (which will make them less safe), you become partly responsible for it. The frivolous McDonald’s lawsuits have nothing to do with it. The problem is your illogical insistence that if you make something illegal, people won’t do it anymore. If you say “it’s illegal now, problem solved, nobody will ever want one again,” which you at least imply is the case, you deserve some blame for what happens.
You assumed I guessed about early pregnancy terminations, and you’ve been proved wrong.
Unsafe abortions still take place, you know. The WHO estimated there are four million of them every year in Latin America alone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm I saw estimates of 20 million worldwide per year, with some 90,000 resulting in deaths, but I haven’t found the surveys those estimates come from.
The “thing” in the womb is a zygote, embryo, or fetus (leaving out some of the early stages).
I didn’t say that was the BASIS. It was an attempt to illustrate something obvious. My apologies for going over your head. I also must compliment you for asking me to be more scientific when you’ve provided no data thus far in about a dozen posts.
In many scenarios does one person’s rights trump that of anothers. You know, you’re right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins, etc.
Logic and reason.
Don’t.
And besides wasn’t it you who similarly said, “It’s pretty annoying when people say they’re sorry when they’re not. Why waste the time typing it?”
Ah, so now I have to provide data and empirical evidence for everything I say, lest it be dismissed by you. Why don’t you just forgo all sanity and say, “There has NEVER been an instance in which the alternative of legal abortion played a factor in a couple’s decision to engage in sexual intercourse.” There is NO EVIDENCE to support my claim that it has. Does that make you happy? Does that make my supposition any less true?
For at least the fourth time I’ll repeat: I never said or implied that it was the prime determining factor. I said that it was an “indirect promotion”. Want to see examples of other “indirect promotions” to sex? Privacy is an indirect promotion, attraction, a bed, tight clothing, etc. are all indirect promotions to sex. Does your data take these into account? Does that mean that they are NOT determining factors?
Please let this go. You’re grasping for straws that simply aren’t there.
I’d like to remind you that YOU were the one bringing up “old-fashioned” ideas. I’m simply following your lead, man. Don’t make irrelevant suppositions, and I won’t make irrelevant counterpoints. Deal?
I can’t even begin to understand that question.
I’m not “suggesting” anything. I’m stating adamently that life begins at conception. I’ll ask, yet again, that if this is not the case, then show me, through science and not supposition, when it does begin.
Interesting conundrum you’ve set up for yourself here. First you stated, “The law doesn’t treat fetuses and embryos as people, with the limited exception of a few murder cases, because there are obvious differences,” which is a contradictatory statement that I should have picked up on previously. :smack: Then, you again made the statement above which says that the law doesn’t recognize a fetus as a person.
Now, we know that “with limited exception” someone can be charged, tried, and convicted of murder or manslaughter if they cause the death of an unborn child. Thus the conundrum: when answering the question of whether the fetus is “alive” before birth with …
…then how can you base your claim upon the law, when there exist legal precedents that do in fact recognize, nay protect, the unborn?
Hmm… Fantasy world, huh? You know, in a fantasy world people probably wouldn’t have to own up to the consequences of their actions. They would probably develop and defend a method to remove consequence, with no regard for anyone but themselves.
Yep, that sounds more like a fantasy world than anything I’ve come up with in this debate. :rolleyes:
Were you offering figures of speech as the basis for your argument? Is that really all you have to offer? Are we debating, or are we writing great literary essays here? As I said before, words mean things – if you don’t mean it, don’t write it.
As for wasting your time with this debate, I’d have to say that based on the pitifully weak arguments you’ve put forth in your last couple of posts, you probably are.
You are free to go at any time.
Interesting. It’s “encumbent” upon ME to provide data and evidence for anything I claim, but you can just throw your suppositions out there with the basis of “it’s always been that way” and I’m supposed to accept them as immutable fact. You really are reaching now.
Other than my supposition that legalized abortion can indirectly influence the decision to engage in sex (which I’ve all but given up based on your voluminus “evidence” to the contrary), nothing I’ve claimed can really be proven with columns of data, thus I’ve not offered them.
However, I gave a compelling reason to believe that life begins at conception because that event is the distinct and definite delineation between what is scientifically not an individual human being and what is. This rational and reasonable conclusion was, of course, met with the following statement:
I just don’t know how to help you if you can’t comprehend the scientific aspect of conception.
Well done. I stand corrected.
Is this one of those statements I’m not supposed to take literally, lest you be wasting your time here?
And less meaningful.
People choose to drive 70 MPH on the interstate because it’s “safe and legal”. If I reduce the speed limit to make it illegal (and thus less safe), how am I responsible for the accidents that occur because people were continuing to drive that fast?
What about the liablity of the other institutions I mentioned? How do those examples not follow your lead?
When have I “insisted” that?
I’ve never implied that. I certainly don’t think it was or would be as prevalent as you claim. People will continue to try to live their dream of attempting to reject personal responsibility as long as we continue to exist. My claim is and has been throughout the course of this debate that people are free to do with and to themselves whatever they wish, as long as they are willing to accept the circumstances of their actions, and as long as their actions do not affect the lives and rights of others. I’m perfectly willing to accept the tradeoff of the comparatively minimal loss of life due to “unsafe” abortions if it means that millions more “safe” abortions will be prevented through the practice being made unlawful once again.
Don’t go getting on your high-horse, pal. I don’t know if I would consider a website that uses the words “may be as high as 50%” and then call the statement a “clinical fact” as a viable source of data. I merely conceded because it’s more than I could offer to the contrary.
There’s no differentiation between safe and unsafe abortions in my book.
Then what exactly WAS your basis? In the absence of anything of else, what more could I base your opinion on if not the actual words that you wrote? There’s no need to illustrate the obvious. I’m aware of tombstones and the term “birthday”, etc. What I’m not aware of is your factual, scientific basis for stating that life begins at birth. I’m also not aware of what “state” of life (you say it’s not “alive”, so what is it?) that you think an unborn child is in. Is it dead? Is it undead? Is it anti-alive?
You know, I’ll have to admit that your incessant attempts to rationalize something that is completely irrational do go over my head.
And I must lament the fact that you’ve demonstrated ZERO ability to comprehend the written word.
I spent a lot of time writing the usual over-long, detailed reply. But I’ll shorten it to this:
Welcome to the Straight Dope. That’s what we do in Great Debates: provide data and empirical evidence. So the answer is yes, you have to provide data and empirical evidence to support your arguments.
THANK you.
If you can’t support your position with any facts, yeah, it just might.
Okay. And I’ll say for at least the second time that it’s an indirect promotion whose effects, if there are any, appear to be so small as to be insignificant. Agreed?
That’s exactly what I’ve been looking for this whole time. I think this will be my last post here. I’ve been saying over and over that your position was not supported by any facts. You personal morality does not alone carry the weight of facts, and the fact that you say your position is logical doesn’t make it so (you obviously don’t think mine is logical, so insisting yours is won’t help). Now that you’ve admitted it, I think I can spend more time on other threads.
And THAT’s exactly what I’ve been looking for this whole time. I’m not surprised that your cowering out now since the debate has finally come down to the issue of the time human life actually begins. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that abortion doesn’t destroy human life. Since the idea that human life begins at conception is the most logical one, pro-abortionists must admit that they are killing a human being or concede the argument altogether. Many of your predecessors have befallen the same fate as you when it gets to this point. It’s simply inarguable.
And saying it over and over STILL doesn’t make it true. But alas, you’ve taken my admission of no evidence to support a minute aspect of the entire argument that you refused to simply let go and turned it into my concession of the entire argument. Congratulations! You won a battle but still lost the war.
Nope, I’ve not admitted “it” at all. In fact, in light of your planned exodus, your refusal to discuss the scientific approach of the beginning of human life, and your complete lack of substantive, empirical evidence to support your latest claims that life begins at birth, I will take this opportunity to claim victory in this debate.
Thank you for your participation. Please feel free to engage me at any time in the future. I assure you I will not back down.
I will be most interested to see you proving a fertilised egg is the same as a person.