Yakuda
Verified User
Stop it. If they found something like a fetus that was alive on another planet they would cream their shorts
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
Whereas I think that highlighting the different levels of intelligence is crucial, for 2 reasons:
1- To compare the relative merits of listening to what the pregnant woman wants.
2- To point out that a lot of animals that have more intelligence than a human fetus are killed on a regular basis for human consumption.
There is a huge difference between forcing a woman carry a fetus to term and killing people who are now living -outside- of the fetus. Notice that I -do- use the word killing when it comes to living humans who no longer require the use of a female body just to live.
Incidentally, I decided to look at the U.S. Welfare system in the U.S. Looks like the system is rife with inneficiency. An article from last year on the issue:
What’s Wrong With The U.S. Welfare State?
We are spending an enormous amount of money on people at the bottom of the income ladder, but that money is doing a very poor job of meeting human needs.
www.forbes.com
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Correct. In some (rare) cases, people have even been revived after HOURS of being declared "clinically dead". Miracles do happen.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
No consciousness, no murder.
Scott
Verified User
Yes. It's rather crazy sometimes:
**
Some states consider a parent as having abandoned their child if they serve over six months in prison and do not see their child at all during that time.
**
Fortunately, some common sense is beginning to peep in:
**
But many states are moving away from using prison or jail time as the only reason to declare parental abandonment.
Can a parent go to jail in Arkansas?
In Arkansas, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled this right requires “clear and convincing evidence” before a parent is declared unfit. That means time in jail or prison alone does not indicate a parent’s worth or ability.**
Source:
Scott
Verified User
I believe that's how things should be because the man made the choice to inject the female via the vagina with his sperm. After this point, I believe what the famel does with the sperm should be up to her.
Not her decision alone. As I already mentioned, the man choose to inject the woman via the vagina with sperm. Had he not done so, there would be no sperm to become pregnant with.
Scott
Verified User
My understanding is that it -was- a federal issue until a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision essentially overturned Roe vs. Wade.
I agree that the potential outcomes are known. I just believe that if a man injects a woman with his sperm via the vaginal cavity and the woman then becomes pregnant with said sperm, the man knew the potential outcome and is thus on the hook for child support if the woman decides to bring her pregnancy to term.
Yakuda
Verified User
Oh ok so we can kill people in comas. Excellent
No hang on. you say the woman should do what she wants with the sperm. Fine. But then the man is off the hook. He decided to make a deposit but she decided to receive the deposit. They have equal responsibility for the pregnancy so I need someone to make a valid case for why she should have unilateral control of the outcome. She can decide to keep the baby and that triggers him to have to pay child support then he should have a say in preventing or requiring an abortion.
Scott
Verified User
First step would be to examine why I imagine.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Patients in comas still have brain activity.
Scott
Verified User
I don't know where you got your statistic, so I decided to do my own research on the subject of repeat abortions. Here's part of an article I found on the subject:
**
About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones. However, policymakers should be more disturbed by the underlying fact that the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States is so high, and that so many women experience repeat unintended pregnancies. Some of these pregnancies end in abortion and some end in unintended births. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a woman to experience both of these outcomes, as well as one or more planned births, during her lifetime.
Reducing repeat abortion must start with reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, which goes back to the basic challenge of helping women prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. In that regard, the almost 7,500 family planning clinics across the country certainly are doing their share, given that unintended pregnancy prevention is their primary mission. Beyond that, both abortion providers and providers of services to women giving birth also contribute, since contraceptive counseling and the provision of a birth control method upon request are standard components of high-quality postabortion and postpartum care.
Strengthening the linkages between services and between providers would seem to be key, however, if the overall goal is to enable women to better manage their reproductive lives and better plan whether and when to have a child or another child. But fostering continuity of care between abortion clinics and contraceptive services programs might be easier said than done. The contentious politics of abortion and the culture wars associated with it have led to the isolation of abortion as a medical service and to the stigmatization of both abortion clients and providers. Indeed, particularly for young and low-income women among whom unintended pregnancy and recourse to abortion are especially common, state and federal government policies over the last 25 years have only exacerbated the situation, by consciously driving wedges between providers of publicly subsidized contraceptive services and facilities providing abortions.
Abortion vs. Repeat Abortion
Although not widely recognized, the U.S. abortion rate reached its height in the early 1980s and has been drifting downward ever since. Over the last few years, however, the decline would appear to have stalled. At the current rate, about one-third of all U.S. women will have had an abortion by age 45. Certain groups are overrepresented among women having abortions: those who are young, poor or near-poor, black, Hispanic or unmarried, and those who already have had one child. Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used some method of contraception during the month they became pregnant. The tiny sliver of all sexually active women not practicing contraception (11%) accounts for the remaining half of all abortions.According to the 2006 Guttmacher Institute report Repeat Abortion in the United States, women having a second or higher-order abortion are substantially different from women having a first abortion in only two important ways: They are more than twice as likely to be age 30 or older and, even after controlling for age, almost twice as likely to already have had a child. (Among all women having an abortion, six in 10 are mothers.)
Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.
More effective conraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births.
Moreover, according to the Guttmacher analysis, women at risk of having a repeat abortion share many of the same characteristics as women at risk of having a repeat unintended birth, including age, number of prior births, and race and ethnicity. The associations with race and ethnicity, as well as poverty, are particularly striking among women having repeat unintended births: Almost half of black women and about 40% of poor and low-income women have had at least one unintended birth.
Indeed, unintended births are as common among U.S. women as is abortion: Almost one-third of all women aged 15–44 report having had at least one unintended birth. A minimum of four in 10 women of reproductive age have had at least one unintended pregnancy, whatever the outcome. Accordingly, as stated in the Guttmacher report, "it is possible, if not likely, that women who have had a prior abortion have also had other unintended pregnancies, some of which they carried to term."
Clearly, more effective contraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births. To improve contraceptive use, a woman first needs good counseling, which will increase her chances of selecting the contraceptive method that is right for her at that particular time in her life. Then she needs easy and affordable access to her chosen method and to the necessary services to support her choice over time. Although having good access to contraceptive services is important for all sexually active women, it seems especially important for women having abortions and women giving birth (whether intended or unintended), who constitute a self-selected group—perhaps a high-risk one at that.
**
Source:
Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...
Scott
Verified User
For the audience, IBDaMann changed the word "unplanned" to "unwanted" in the quote of mine above. The thing is, they're not the same thing. I even quoted an article from Wikipedia that explains that unplanned pregnancies fall into 2 separate categories, but it appears that IBDaMann never read it.
I think this is a very good example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the old saying goes. For the audience, here is where I get into the 2 separate categories that IBDaMann apparently never got to reading, as well links to poor maternal and child health outcomes from unintended pregnancies in general. Quoting Wikipedia's entry once more for anyone interested in the subject:
**
Unintended pregnancies are pregnancies that are mistimed or unwanted at the time of conception,[1] also known as unplanned pregnancies.[2][3]
Sexual activity without the use of effective contraception through choice or coercion is the predominant cause of unintended pregnancy. Worldwide, the unintended pregnancy rate is approximately 45% of all pregnancies (for a total of 120 million unintended pregnancies annually), but rates vary in different geographic areas and among different sociodemographic groups.[4][5] Unintended pregnancies may be unwanted pregnancies or mistimed pregnancies.[6] While unintended pregnancies are the main reason for induced abortions,[6] unintended pregnancies may also result in other outcomes, such as live births or miscarriages.
Unintended pregnancy has been linked to numerous poor maternal and child health outcomes, regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy.[6] Efforts to decrease rates of unintended pregnancy have focused on improving access to effective contraception through improved counseling and removing barriers to contraception access.
**
Source:
Unintended pregnancy - Wikipedia
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sybil is an example of why we need retroactive abortion. You know, like Brian Kilmeade mentioned.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
What I mean by that is following what The Bible (taken as a whole) says about various subjects. For instance, there's a lot of good practical advice found in Proverbs. Upon study, there's also a lot of good reasons for why various OT Laws were established for the nation of Israel.
We can agree on that.
Scott
Verified User
Surely you understand the difference between a possibility and a certainty? A person who drives a car without insurance doesn't "plan" to crash. If anything, I imagine they'd be even more cautious on the road precisely because they don't have insurance.
A man can and does end the lives of millions of sperm every day:
How Long Does It Take for Sperm to Regenerate? Tips for Production
Your testicles make several million sperm a day. Here’s how long it takes for them to regenerate (or mature), how this affects your fertility, and more.
www.healthline.com
Does he "kill" them every time he ejaculates? Or is it fine since they'd die anyway?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I read through the article. I didn't notice anywhere within the article where it clearly defined the term 'contract killing' (the agreed-upon killing of a living human by a "professional killer" on behalf of a "customer") and clearly reasoned how abortion isn't a specific subset of the term 'contract killing'.And here's where we disagree. A Proud Lefty actually found an article that gets into the difference between contract killing and abortions. It's here if you'd like to take a look:
Abortion is nothing like hiring a hitman, whatever Pope Francis says
Some careful reasoning shows that comparing abortion with contract murder equates two acts that are far from obviously morally equivalent.theconversation.com
We've already agreed with each other that it is a living human that is being unalived (IOW, a living human was directly caused to be no longer living).
A doctor (in this case, a professional killer) was hired by the pregnant woman (in this case, a customer) to kill another living human (in this case, an unborn child). All such abortions fall under this greater category of 'contract killing'. Thus, abortion is a subset of 'contract killing'. Show me how it isn't, because I (and IBDaMann before me) have very clearly walked through the logic of how it IS.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I am aware. However, the only sure-fire way to avoid having a child is to ABSTAIN from heterosexual intercourse.
Agreed. However, the only sure-fire way to avoid having a child is to ABSTAIN from heterosexual intercourse.
Agreed (on a surface level).
I like that idea too (which is why I strongly recommend marriage BEFORE ever having sex). The idea is to form stability (a lifelong commitment to another person, or as I say, a "joining together of two separate bodies into a single unified body") before attempting to bring another human into the world. Of course, life isn't perfect/fair/equal/etc, and "shit happens", but that's the principle of the matter and that process very often works out a lot better than making careless decisions instead. In fact, the very decision to enter into a marriage itself can be a careless decision (which will often end in divorce or other unpleasantness).
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Let's say that it is a killing, what, next, would your argument be?
Yakuda
Verified User
first its consciousness now its brain activity. Rolling goal posts.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I think you're right (that it probably wouldn't go over so well with numerous non Christians). I also think that some non Christians can see the practical reasoning behind what I am saying and why I am saying it (even if they don't "fear God" as I [should] do).
Discernment isn't always easy, that's for sure. Some things are rather "black/white" (aka "oppressive slavery is evil") while other things are much "grayer" (aka "I know that I shouldn't tell lies, but I can save someone else's life by telling a lie in this instance". Christians tend to pray to God for proper discernment under such "grayer" circumstances.