Abortion Discussion

[civilwarbuff]

I doubt it. Most people don't respond to post-mortem surveys. I know I don't. Every time I've been hospitalized, a few weeks later I get a "How did we do?" survey, and toss them, unless I have a serious complaint.

After 30+ years working in a hospital....I agree with you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is not true that what is in the womb (not a baby) is "exactly the same as the baby out of the womb." A primary difference is the real baby has used lungs actually working lungs, breathing the breath of life. It has eyes that have opened when it is no longer parasitically imprisoned in a womb, and many sensory and reflex actions of actually used organs. It is autonomous in that it is, unlike the fetus, not totally dependent for subsistence on a tubal connection to a woman. And most importantly, it then first an animal, an animal being, the member of a species, a human being.

Note: If those who favor abortion do not agree on every point, it is NOT because "they make up their narrative as they go along," only that some have a better and more clear and fuller understanding than others.

It's as much a baby in the womb as an acorn is an oak tree. In other words, completely the same, in terms of DNA.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But is one they love to believe and spread around....

It's such a slippery slope. Teach them that 'they're gonna do it anyway, so here's how you have 'safe' sex." Oops, that didn't work, let's keep telling them that, and make the hormone changes stronger (of course, this causes cancer, but let's not tell them that, let's just go pink and walk to cure breast cancer!), oops! that doesn't work either, let's make the womb so inhospitable that a fertilized egg won't attach. And then, let's leave them wondering why, later in life, they can't conceive children...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's such a slippery slope. Teach them that 'they're gonna do it anyway, so here's how you have 'safe' sex." Oops, that didn't work, let's keep telling them that, and make the hormone changes stronger (of course, this causes cancer, but let's not tell them that, let's just go pink and walk to cure breast cancer!), oops! that doesn't work either, let's make the womb so inhospitable that a fertilized egg won't attach. And then, let's leave them wondering why, later in life, they can't conceive children...

Or you could teach abstinence only and watch the teenage pregnancy rate rise...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's as much a baby in the womb as an acorn is an oak tree. In other words, completely the same, in terms of DNA.

What's DNA have to do with it?

 

[AirPo]

It's as much a baby in the womb as an acorn is an oak tree. In other words, completely the same, in terms of DNA.

Only if it's a clone.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Or you could teach abstinence only and watch the teenage pregnancy rate rise...

If all you do is tell kids not to do it, you're right. They'll wonder why, and do it anyway. If you teach them why they should be abstinent, you have a better success rate. I've taught three children and nine grandchildren about abstinence and why they should wait until their marriage to experience the joy of sex, and have, to date, not had any pregnancies result. I know, small sample size, anecdotal, etc. ad nauseum, but when it's taught correctly it works. But teach a child to use condoms, and there's a great chance that it's gonna fail. Teach them to use the pill, and there's a good chance it will fail. Why do you think numbers of illegitimate children have risen since the rise of rampant birth control? It's because they think they can do the act without any consequences. IT's just not true. The real lie is that you can have sex and never worry about having children. The truth is that abstinence works 100% of the time that it is used. Birth control fails, whether due to improper use, inconsistent use, or plain old failure of the product.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What's DNA have to do with it?

Do I need to start at the beginning? DNA proves humanity, or oak-tree-ity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Only if it's a clone.

Oh! Abortion humor!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If all you do is tell kids not to do it, you're right. They'll wonder why, and do it anyway. If you teach them why they should be abstinent, you have a better success rate. I've taught three children and nine grandchildren about abstinence and why they should wait until their marriage to experience the joy of sex, and have, to date, not had any pregnancies result. I know, small sample size, anecdotal, etc. ad nauseum, but when it's taught correctly it works. But teach a child to use condoms, and there's a great chance that it's gonna fail. Teach them to use the pill, and there's a good chance it will fail. Why do you think numbers of illegitimate children have risen since the rise of rampant birth control? It's because they think they can do the act without any consequences. IT's just not true. The real lie is that you can have sex and never worry about having children. The truth is that abstinence works 100% of the time that it is used. Birth control fails, whether due to improper use, inconsistent use, or plain old failure of the product.

Abstinence only education does teach the "why" in terms of disease and pregnancy. And the statistics bear out its failure.

On the other hand, the CDC says that the low overall teenage pregnancy rate is due in part to sex education and an increase in contraception use.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Do I need to start at the beginning? DNA proves humanity, or oak-tree-ity.

Yes, you can look at DNA and see that it's human DNA. Are you saying that anything with human DNA is a person with rights?

 

[Dave-W]

For those who are proponents of abortion, If the medical/scientific community can come up with an artificial womb that could support a growing fetus to term, would that be an acceptable alternative to aborting the fetus? Or does the woman HAVE to have a dead fetus?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"That knife" is you misquoting me? Do you really want to change your mind, change your position, because it isyour second point you make to read the opposite of what you first said?

What do I supposedly "see," that you can be untrue both to me and to your self?

I can guess that you think what you have done is as salient as what I have done - that you can simply say the opposite and it is just as good a point. Well, MY POINT, in case you didn't notice, is that what you claim to be an argument is NO ARGUMENT. I do not here make any argument about the status of the fetus nor claim to make any such argument - I tried to point out the untruth of your claim that it is an argument (and also point to in passing "unborn baby," which is constantly thrown out and begs the question.)

Sorry you don't understand the intent of my reply. It is really quite simple.

So what is it, simply?
Probably simply silly, or am I supposed to intuit "the intent" of your reply regardless of what you say?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

For those who are proponents of abortion, If the medical/scientific community can come up with an artificial womb that could support a growing fetus to term, would that be an acceptable alternative to aborting the fetus? Or does the woman HAVE to have a dead fetus?

If it's no more expensive or invasive than an abortion, which the woman would be doing anyway, I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Abstinence only education does teach the "why" in terms of disease and pregnancy. And the statistics bear out its failure.

On the other hand, the CDC says that the low overall teenage pregnancy rate is due in part to sex education and an increase in contraception use.

Teaching science to kids doesn't cover the whole of it. I know you're an atheist and don't want God in the discussion, but that's why your atheism arguments don't work, because they leave out at least half of the subject. Sure, there are diseases, sure there's pregnancy, but why is that a bad thing? BECAUSE GOD TELLS US SO.

 

[AirPo]

If it's no more expensive or invasive than an abortion, which the woman would be doing anyway, I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it.

It's obviously way more expensive. Someone has to raise the child.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's obviously way more expensive. Someone has to raise the child.

Good point.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, you can look at DNA and see that it's human DNA. Are you saying that anything with human DNA is a person with rights?

Anything with completely human DNA. All 23 pairs.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
"That knife" is you misquoting me? Do you really want to change your mind, change your position, because it isyour second point you make to read the opposite of what you first said?

What do I supposedly "see," that you can be untrue both to me and to your self?

I can guess that you think what you have done is as salient as what I have done - that you can simply say the opposite and it is just as good a point. Well, MY POINT, in case you didn't notice, is that what you claim to be an argument is NO ARGUMENT. I do not here make any argument about the status of the fetus nor claim to make any such argument - I tried to point out the untruth of your claim that it is an argument (and also point to in passing "unborn baby," which is constantly thrown out and begs the question.)


So what is it, simply?
Probably simply silly, or am I supposed to intuit "the intent" of your reply regardless of what you say?

Sorry you don't understand the point I was making and why I was making it. If you can't understand it on your own no way can I explain it. It can't be simpler......Try looking at it from an irony perspective....

 

[Dave-W]

It's obviously way more expensive. Someone has to raise the child.

And there is quite a waiting list for infants to be adopted. To offset the cost, an admin fee could be added to the adoption procedure.