Abortion debate (3 Viewers)

[ur_inner_child]

Ok Erawamai, what about murder then? Murder is also an unavoidable consequence of society itself. You outlaw it and it will go underground. So lets give people the choice of murder. We are not saying its right, we are just giving people the choice. In any case it will be a difficult decision for anyone to murder another.

i dont simply see it as parallel to murder, so this example is a bit whack to me.

i still would like to affirm that whether or not you feel the issue is morally correct or not, people WILL go and use unsafe, unsanitary and unadvised ways to abort - ie coathanger technique.

You are still talking in theory wise, and with this issue we are trying to apply it to real life. A lot of anti-abortionists understand the risk of illegalising abortion entirely, but still stand for it as morally wrong.

Please try to apply your theory to real life.

 

[musik_junky]

Erawamai and inner child, put all your emotive arguments about "social dynamics" etc aside. The science (as discussed on this thread earlier) shows that the foetus is a living thing with a consciousness.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The science (as discussed on this thread earlier) shows that the foetus is a living thing with a consciousness.

Surprising you say that since most people whom could actually be called real biological/medical scientists would actually disagree with you - not that I am arguing from popular opinion, just that these people actually do have very good arguments for their beliefs... I'd like to know why you think they're wrong? These people do not collude together... many of them are christians... yet they all come to the same conclusions following the scientific method.

 

[Generator]

The science (as discussed on this thread earlier) shows that the foetus is a living thing with a consciousness.

A grand claim, but one that cannot be upheld scientifically.

Edit: If NTB doesn't mind, I'd like to add my own request for a response to his question.

Edit 2: As for the 'emotive arguments' claim... I think that that is an interesting claim for one such as junky to make. If my memory serves, her intial forays into this debate were overly emotional and easily criticised (more so than now). However, it is good to see that members of this forum are able to do all that they can to repackage their arguments after a time.

 

[HotShot]

A grand claim, but one that cannot be upheld scientifically.

Edit: If NTB doesn't mind, I'd like to add my own request for a response to his question.

Edit 2: As for the 'emotive arguments' claim... I think that that is an interesting claim for one such as junky to make. If my memory serves, her intial forays into this debate were overly emotional and easily criticised (more so than now). However, it is good to see that members of this forum are able to do all that they can to repackage their arguments after a time.

I dont it matters whether is alive or not, after all we end 'murdering' everything apart from humans. I believe the matter is more pschyological , the impact after an abortion to her close ones. Clearly they will be affected and i dont think she has right to hurt them pscychologicall?

If you allow abortion, then why go ahead with cloning, and step forward in stem-cell reasearch.

Scientifically, abortion seems reasonable, i think its all got to with relationships. anyway Abbot is a DICKHEAD l.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Just a general observation

Phanatical always seems to leave the discussion at this point of the argument, leaving questions unanswered, or has nothing further to say after someone (usually erawamai and in the past, me) refutes his points, yet continues to bring up the same metaphors, same arguments and the same attitudes time and time again with every thread to do with abortion.

I even post before him saying "phantical there is no need for a repeat" and yet it continues.

Phanatical I encourage you to further your argument, rather than repeat it in another thread.

 

[musik_junky]

If you allow abortion, then why go ahead with cloning, and step forward in stem-cell reasearch.

Yeah if you allow abortion, you should also allow the death penalty.

 

[musik_junky]

I'd like to know why you think they're wrong?

If you bothered reading all the posts, you would see....

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you bothered reading all the posts, you would see....

That really does not answer my question... Why is it exactly that you think all these scientists, from different backgrounds, people whom are very well qualified in their fields (often different fields) have come to the opposite conclusion to you? I mean they don't collude together, they're not a group of atheist scum or anything... so why?

 

[musik_junky]

Don't just make bold claims. Cite your sources, just like I did in this very thread.

 

[musik_junky]

Why is it exactly that you think all these scientists, from different backgrounds, people whom are very well qualified in their fields (often different fields) have come to the opposite conclusion to you?

sources?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

sources?

Um... so you don't believe that these people come to different conclusions to you?

 

[ur_inner_child]

ahahah shit.

 

[ogmzergrush]

ahahah shit.

I DEMAND PROOF, you CANT MAKE SUCH RIDICULOUS CLAIMS WITHOUT PROOF!

(lol!)

 

[davin]

Why's that 15-year-old pregnant?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Truth is I would rather the girl have an abortion and we only have to deal with her suffering than have a baby and make us all pay for it. If a girl doesn't want a baby I really don't see why we should make them have it, unless we start up some sort of huge adoption program?

 

[katie_tully]

Far out brussel sprout, I wrote a whole page thanks to musik junky and it logged me out instead of posting.
In summary, musik you're a twit. Please, please no more murder/abortion anagrams or anecdotes or whatever...and for the love of god, don't use false scientific evidence as a basis for your argument. It makes me cry.

 

[davin]

I gather from sexual contact. Adolescents still have sex even if denied sex education.

They just don't know much about contraception or anything to do with it.

This is a frequently more common situation in Australia.

which, i'd say is a sign that contraception needs to be discussed more, and they should be told of the consequences of it....so that girls aren't having sex thinking that they can't get pregnant, or getting pregnant because they're using contraceptives wrong.

my point is just, the arguement of abortion being ok because "oh look at this poor girl, she's pregant and doesn't know what to do, pity her" just makes me think that she should've been realising this problem in the first place and considered the possiblity when she was deciding to have sex. and it is a choice.

i mean, i tend to eat unhealthily...atm not really overweight because of it, but if it happened and then i said "oh, i'm really fat and i don't know what to do" people would say i was an idiot and should've realised that eating poorly can well lead to weight gain, and that i should've been responsible on the matter.

 

[katie_tully]

For the love of god, Davin. Must we, the intelligent Pro Choicers have to keep reiterating our stance?
We too understand that when you have sex you should consider the consequences. Every girl that gets pregnant is not stupid, is not irresponsible and in some cases took every precaution NOT to get pregnant.
I know a married woman with 5 children who had her tubes tied who got pregnant. Married women make up the majority of abortions, married women with children. It is not always a case of "silly girl got pregnant didn't think of consequences.

ohgsoidrhoirdhoidfh

 

[HotShot]

Quoted for truth.

Even if you get your tubes tied, take the pill, and hell, even if the guy gets a vasectomy, you can STILL GET PREGNANT, because there's still a chance.

Abortions need to be there as an option. kthxbai.

t he option is dont have sex.