Abortion

[got tonkaed]

i find it odd that a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states is as comparatively tough on abortion by comparison to the US.

Those are two entirely seperate things. Brain death and persistent vegetative state are things people can't recover from. There is no hope for the person to ever wake up again, the only thing we're doing is keeping their body functioning untill it dies too.

dont get me wrong, im pretty ok with the policy on that end of the issue. But a lot of times its easier when you are making policy to have consistency on both of the spectrum of life, or so i would have thought.

[Snorri1234]

i find it odd that a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states is as comparatively tough on abortion by comparison to the US.

Those are two entirely seperate things. Brain death and persistent vegetative state are things people can't recover from. There is no hope for the person to ever wake up again, the only thing we're doing is keeping their body functioning untill it dies too.

dont get me wrong, im pretty ok with the policy on that end of the issue. But a lot of times its easier when you are making policy to have consistency on both of the spectrum of life, or so i would have thought.

Well yes, but the problem is that they're medically completely different. I can understand the UK because a fetus potentially has a decent change of getting a life, whereas brain-death patients don't. It's why they're referred to as plants; they don't and most probably never will become concious humans again.

Only if you really over-simplify the issue you could say they're sort of the same.

[got tonkaed]

thats probably true. But i think its very easy for people to make that claim - in fact i think a lot of the people who advocate for not doing it as a sanctity of life issue probably see it that way.

[PLAYER57832]

thats probably true. But i think its very easy for people to make that claim - in fact i think a lot of the people who advocate for not doing it as a sanctity of life issue probably see it that way.

People will make all kinds of claims with ease ... that doesn't mean those claims are valid.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm sorry, you just don't have the intellectual level required here. ......
You'e also got some issues understanding basic english. ..... Mind you, knowing just how air-headed you are, that's probably so...

And here I thought you were attempting to make an INTELLIGENT and reasoned debate. When you are ready to discuss this and not just throw out stupid labels Fine.

and, I would say I probably know a bit more about this than you.



I had a miscarriage and was treated absolutely HORRIBLY because, in the Catholic hospital which was the ONLY facility available, the nurses decided, DESPITE the fact that the doctor absolutely confirmed there was no life, DESPITE any desire on my part .. .I was having an abortion. Legally, it was LISTED as an "abortion". (something I did not realize until later). This was a VERY MUCH WANTED child. I had to go through surgery instead of the "natural" route because A. my doctor thought there was a serious risk of my bleeding to death. and B. I am rH negative which means that unless I get an injection of antibodies, my body will set up an allergic reaction to any future children. Had I NOT had this procedure, I would not have the 2 healthy children I have. (and no, this is NOT standard Catholic policy ... it is, however what ends up getting translated as "Catholic policy" by many members, particularly in more rural areas.)

I did not say "what I had heard" I said "my experience" Which means women I know who have gone through this. Something I MIGHT just happen to know a bit more about than you. I doubt many women, are talking to you about this openly right now.



And, as for the statistics ... I would gaurantee that having gone through college, AND used them in my profession, I just might understand them.

CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE deciding you have the right to insult someone!

And one statistic you did NOT report is the percentage of miscarriages. Roughly 30% of first trimester pregnancies end with miscarriage ... even TODAY, with all the medical advances.

And beyond personal anecdote, do you have concrete, reasoned argument, or empirical evidence? No.

Of course, if you'd actually fucking bothered do read my post, you'd realise that it invalidates what little actual content can be extrapolated from your lengthy waffling, because it demonstrates such medical cases as being in the clear minority in terms of reasons for late-term abortion. We aren't discussing miscarriages here, you do realise, yah?

But again, this is all irrelevant...surely, if you are so confident that all late-term abortions are performed for reasons which threaten the mother's life, why not support banning them in any other case?

[got tonkaed]

call me old fashioned...but when people try to relate something to me about their personal experience which was probably a very difficult time in their life, i try not to usually respond by throwing it back in their face charging that they "cant fucking read" and that they "waffle about something like a miscarriage"

pretty poor form.

[Napoleon Ier]

call me old fashioned...but when people try to relate something to me about their personal experience which was probably a very difficult time in their life, i try not to usually respond by throwing it back in their face charging that they "cant fucking read" and that they "waffle about something like a miscarriage"

pretty poor form.

I really don't have time for it. It's probably made up, and it's beyond irrelevant. People who try to intellectually terrorize others with their sob stories disgust me.

[tzor]

But again, this is all irrelevant...surely, if you are so confident that all late-term abortions are performed for reasons which threaten the mother's life, why not support banning them in any other case?

I think this point cannot be understated. Once you eliminate the absolutist positions adopted by the extreeme lobbyists you discover that a significant majority are for a reasonable position between the two extreemes. Where in those extreems can depend on personal positions, but since the argument has always been defined by the extreemes the point often is moot.

Most pro-life people would support abortions when the mother's life is threatened. Note this is different from the "health of the mother" which is code words used by the absolute pro-abortion side which would allow any sort of hand waved condition to apply. If we are talking about the late term abortion of a perfectly viable fetus then "If I have a c-section I'll have a scar" doesn't justify an abortion. The potential for life or the significant chance of irrevsable damage to the uterus should be the criteria for a viable fetus. (A non viable fetus needs no justification.)

Banning really isn't the solution, as also unbanning isn't the soluton. We need procedures and criteria that allows all things to be considered. The last thing we need is a different line in the sand to be drawn. Consider New York and just born babies. Under the law any baby under 6 months old that is not wanted can be given to any specified site (hospitals and for some odd reason fire houses) without any reprocussions. After 6 months, they fry your ass in jail. (A taxi driver just got arrested for lying in a case involving one of his relatives and an infant who was older than 6 months. The mother happened to be a minor.)

[got tonkaed]

call me old fashioned...but when people try to relate something to me about their personal experience which was probably a very difficult time in their life, i try not to usually respond by throwing it back in their face charging that they "cant fucking read" and that they "waffle about something like a miscarriage"

pretty poor form.

I really don't have time for it. It's probably made up, and it's beyond irrelevant. People who try to intellectually terrorize others with their sob stories disgust me.

You really think someone would make up something like that to win an internet debate? I guess its just a decency issue, which i think is more relevant that you seem to be letting on. If i had to guess, id argue whatever it was that just happened wasnt at all about abortion, and about something else that you dont need to be dumping on someone when they try and share a personal story.

[jonesthecurl]

and, Napoleon, in the unlikely event that your piss-and-vinegar personality ever charms someone into bearing your children, I hope that you can just as airily dismiss any "personal anecdotes" or "sob stories"of your own. Your comments here are beyond arrogant, beyond poor taste, beyond the inflated rhetoric which often passes for debate in these columns, and are beneath contempt. Luckily I for one will not be reading any more of your insane rantings, as I've added you to my ignore list.

[Snorri1234]

I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

And Canada has the most liberal policy, with the highest abortion rate...correlation, as is so often said, does not mean causation.

Besides, if abortion were made illegal and anyone caught performing them executed or deproted to forced-labor camps, I doubt the rates would be all that high.

[Napoleon Ier]

and, Napoleon, in the unlikely event that your piss-and-vinegar personality ever charms someone into bearing your children, I hope that you can just as airily dismiss any "personal anecdotes" or "sob stories"of your own. Your comments here are beyond arrogant, beyond poor taste, beyond the inflated rhetoric which often passes for debate in these columns, and are beneath contempt. Luckily I for one will not be reading any more of your insane rantings, as I've added you to my ignore list.

I dismiss these stories when they are used in a cowardly attempt to intllectually terrorize other participants of a debate. I'm sorry you feel that way about my post, but I'm in an exceptionally foul mood today, and have absolutely no inclination to entertain this underhand method of debate. No doubt the aim was to silence opponents by making them feel too awkward to pipe up. I won't stand for that.

[Snorri1234]

I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

And Canada has the most liberal policy, with the highest abortion rate...correlation, as is so often said, does not mean causation.

Yeah I know, but neither is it entirely right to claim the liberal view on abortion and sex as a whole hasn't helped to lower the rates.

Besides, if abortion were made illegal and anyone caught performing them executed or deproted to forced-labor camps, I doubt the rates would be all that high.

Yes, let's all become totalitarian societies!!!

Because that will be the end-result of such things.

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't get it. Western and Nothern Europe have the lowest abortion-rates and also the most liberal policies, while the countries with the most strict policies have the highest rates.

Wouldn't you conclude from that that the best way to reduce abortion-rates is making it legal?

And Canada has the most liberal policy, with the highest abortion rate...correlation, as is so often said, does not mean causation.

Yeah I know, but neither is it entirely right to claim the liberal view on abortion and sex as a whole hasn't helped to lower the rates.

Besides, if abortion were made illegal and anyone caught performing them executed or deproted to forced-labor camps, I doubt the rates would be all that high.

Yes, let's all become totalitarian societies!!!

Because that will be the end-result of such things.

Will it? Plenty of non-totalitarian regimes have installed death penalties for murder. What I propose is such a penalty for one of the most heinous forms of it.

[jonesthecurl]

It's a lot more peaceful here when you can't read what Nappy says. I recommend it.

[Snorri1234]

Will it? Plenty of non-totalitarian regimes have installed death penalties for murder. What I propose is such a penalty for one of the most heinous forms of it.

Not murder according to a lot of people. Besides, there are plenty of countries where murder is punished by death and abortion is also illegal. And those countries have higher rates of abortion.

[MeDeFe]

I propose that Nappy lists a few non-totalitarian countries which make use of the death penalty, btw after 2 terms of Dubya the USA can hardly count.

[Napoleon Ier]

I propose that Nappy lists a few non-totalitarian countries which make use of the death penalty, btw after 2 terms of Dubya the USA can hardly count.

They do too.

The issue, however, as I'm sure an intelligent person will have no difficulty understanding, is that the death penalty for the most appalling crimes (infanticide, rape, child abuse and treason) is entirely compatible with a free society.

It's also ironic that I'm one of very few anti-totalitarians on this board. All of you seem to get rather haughty and irritated when I propose we be given rights to trade freely, to engage in capitalist actions between consenting parties as we wish, to dispose of our income as we desire, to defend ourselves...yet when it comes to who is supposedly "fascist", it's funnily enough me who's pointed out?

An inconsistency? I reported, you decide.

[suggs]

You're not a facist - as you say, you believe in free trade and capitalism (difficult for a genuine fascist to believe in either).

But your Achilles heel, Nap, is this religious/cultish nonsense.
Thats the only reason you're against abortion. Have the guts to admit it.

[Snorri1234]

I propose that Nappy lists a few non-totalitarian countries which make use of the death penalty, btw after 2 terms of Dubya the USA can hardly count.

They do too.

The issue, however, as I'm sure an intelligent person will have no difficulty understanding, is that the death penalty for the most appalling crimes (infanticide, rape, child abuse and treason) is entirely compatible with a free society.

Yes. But the problem is that you list abortion under that same thing and also might I add propose measures entirely contradictory with a free society. Putting people in work-camps is something only totalitarian or nearly totalitarian societies do. f*ck the death penalty, let's just ignore the fact that the USA is the only society in western culture that allows such horrible and drastic measures to take place. It's the putting in camps of people who don't commit an actual crime by our standards which is horrible.

The only "free" society which allows the death penalty does so only for the most heinous of crimes (or when black people do anything) and rape and child abuse usually aren't included in that.

It's also ironic that I'm one of very few anti-totalitarians on this board.

Haha, the amount of irony involved in your statement is too much for my Irony-measurer so it collapsed.

You think that just because you support a free market and all that crap means you don't support a totallitarian society, while your religious beliefs forced on people actually make one regardless.

All of you seem to get rather haughty and irritated when I propose we be given rights to trade freely, to engage in capitalist actions between consenting parties as we wish, to dispose of our income as we desire, to defend ourselves...yet when it comes to who is supposedly "fascist", it's funnily enough me who's pointed out?

Bullshit. You propose a society where the rights of individuals aren't limited as long as it agrees with your religion. You think that your speeches on free trade (like anyone in this world does that) also mean the entire society is free, while your opposition to gay-marriage, abortion and mostly anything non-catholic show a different picture. A society doesn't have to reject free trade to be totalitarian. Shit, it can be totally engaged in free market as long as social issues are still government-mandated.

You spout all that shit about letting people decide what to do for themselves but in the same passage attack people for doing what they think is okay. You don't truly believe in a free society, you just believe in a society which does what you think is allright. You are in favor of limiting rights as long as they're not your rights.

f*ck it, what would you care? Doesn't the bible tell you that people are judged when they try to enter the afterlife and shit like abortions is taken care of? Even if we're killing human beings, the fact is that those human beings get to spend their time in the after life (clumps of cells have a great time there) while us non-believers have to spend eternity in hell.

[Snorri1234]

You're not a facist - as you say, you believe in free trade and capitalism (difficult for a genuine fascist to believe in either).

But your Achilles heel, Nap, is this religious/cultish nonsense.
Thats the only reason you're against abortion. Have the guts to admit it.

Yes, he may not be a fascist, but he sure is totalitarian when it comes to social issues.

[THORNHEART]

its murder pure and simple...and everyone knows it they just want to excuse it.

life begins at conception and to take a life is murder.

we care more about our freaking animal species than we do about our own human children!!!
what is this sick world!!!

[Napoleon Ier]

You're not a facist - as you say, you believe in free trade and capitalism (difficult for a genuine fascist to believe in either).

But your Achilles heel, Nap, is this religious/cultish nonsense.
Thats the only reason you're against abortion. Have the guts to admit it.

Yes, he may not be a fascist, but he sure is totalitarian when it comes to social issues.

No, I believe individual rights. You have a serious misconception of the abortion debate. If I perceive the foetus to be human, then surely it is incompatible with a free society for his rights to be ignored?

Of course, the death penalty I advocate is merely a temporary, deterrent (and hence justified) measure. It's really of no relevance, however. Let's forget, it was half facetious in any case...

Now, social issues and economic are intrinsically related...a minimum wage (blatant arbitrary restriction of capitalist acts between consenting parties), social or economic? Eh, snorri? Is it, furthermore, any co-incidence that free societies have always economically been free, as well? To subjugate individuals economically is to subjugate them socially. The two fields are indissociable. The freedom to establish trading relations with whom I wish, if they consent, is justified in the same way as the freedom for you to have sexual relations with whomever you want to,if they consent. The moral grounds are the same-economic issues are a mere, blurred subset of social freedoms.

On the issue of gay rights, I've explained countless times how marriage isn't a right but a societal, collective grant, a social institution which only normal couples can access. Paraphilic couples, (be they homosexual, incestuous, bestial, paedophilic, or whatever) cannot access it. It isn't, in short, a rights issue.

Now, were I to impose a Catholic state, snorri, you would be banned from taking the Lord's name in vain, masturbating, eating meat on fridays during Lent, viewing pornography, and forced to attend regular Mass, confess your sins, say ten Hail Marys ever night and go on pilgrimage once a year.

But I don't advocate that...I only advocate a free society which is by nature and necessarily respectful of individual rights. There's room for disagreement within that (I recognise the rights of the foetus, differ on the issue of society's right to stable instituions of marriage...), but fundamentally, I am libertarian, you are, sadly not.

I support people's rights to do as they please so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights to do the same, you, however, have delusional dreams of a common societal good toward which resources and labor are collectively and if necessary coercivelly. directed.

[jiminski]

The Death penalty is reflective of a weak and immature state.

Abortion has to be legal but it needs to be accompanied by as much education of our youngsters, prior to getting to that point, as possible!
It should never, as i have witnessed it, be used as a form of contraceptive.

When i was 16, i was in a very loving, sexual relationship with a girl of the same age. We always used a condom but once, in the midst of a particularly passionate and experimental expression of our lust, it split.
The massive sense of responsibility; we faced together!

Now for me, as a 16 year old Young man, the idea of fathering a baby whilst at school was daunting to the point of being unthinkable. i was mature for my years but were we all destined to falter along the road of forgotten-potential, struggle and uncertainty?
Tiptoeing towards this with my girlfriend was delicate but we were of the same mind.

So we took the morning off school, went to the health clinic together and she was given a morning-after pill, to pre-empt the pregnancy.

Now this was a massive moment, I still remember the stark, grey feeling as the blood no longer had the determination to make it all the way to my adolescent brain! But we were well grounded, well educated and just about equipped to deal with the situation.
It is likely that pregnancy would not even have been the result of our sinful passion, however we knew we could not afford that chance.

Religion may dictate that we should not have been having sex before we were ready to sire children... But then some Religions also dictate that their most stringent proponents be celebrate; abstaining from the temptation of the flesh. We can see how this responsibility can lead them to more heinous temptations of the Flesh, as they culminate from their bottled desires.
The reality is that Abstinence, although worthy, is often a very self-destructive fallacy!

So were we, two embryonic travellers about to journey into life, to weigh the cost to all and let the hand of fate decide our future; 2 barely teenage parents and a patchy fraught future?

bugger that! it is a frigging ridiculous course to take, we took the correct one!


A lack of education, coupled with teenage sex and the absence of: contraceptive; morning-after pill and, as a last resort; abortion! is why we see so many buggered, ill-equipped children begetting children!
Then what do we end up with? tragedy left and right! Father figures without the ability to even guide themselves and mothers habitually crippled by an unnecessary responsibility.. not a good foundation for a child and not a good base for society.

Sex! i am all for it! Provided it is not brushed under the carpet by the sanctimonious guilt-sellers! Those who, let's face it, are not qualified to give direction upon it!