Abortion: Good or Bad?

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

you fail at reading comprehension don't you, Duster? Also A fetus isn't a living human being yet. so you're point been moot logn ago. Why even argue at this point.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

I've already explained why I say you're wrong and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point. So right, let's not argue at this point.
Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Disney Duster wrote:I've already explained why I say you're wrong
no you haven't.
Disney Duster wrote:and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point.
A fetus does not become a human until long after that(long after 40 weeks). And that most abortions are perform long before that stage happens. We said this before. Like I said. You need to learn read better.

Disney Duster wrote:So right, let's not argue at this point.
To me that sounds like you don't want to admit you're wrong and that you don't want to deal with the argument any more.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

I already explained how once it has a heartbeat it is a living human being.
Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Disney Duster wrote:I already explained how once it has a heartbeat it is a living human being.
Except that doesn't qualify as being alive or a living being yet.

Someone already refute that point as there are organisms that do not have a heart at all yet are still living organisms.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

No but those are organisms that don't require a heartbeat. We are talking about human life, not other life. If you want to talk about life for any organism, it's when all the organism's parts that are required for it to be alive are working. Also in the case of humans its when it's feeling and thinking but they are not quite sure of when that happens so we have to go by the parts that they can observe such as heartbeat and the rest.
Image
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora wrote: bold is key.
The part you bolded is not the quote from the Bible. It is what the tumblr person wrote.
But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.
Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:Being able to think, have free will etc does not constitute as being alive. If you went that direction might as well say animals and plants are alive or living either.
Animals are alive. You shouldn't kill them either, but what I've been talking about in here is killing live humans.
If you had actually read what SA had put instead of skimming over it, you would have noticed that he was saying that by YOUR LOGIC, animals and plants aren't alive. You said that Adam wasn't 'alive' until he had free will, the ability to think, etc.
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

I believe that it's quite unfair (to say the least) to force a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy just because of a mistake or worse, a sexual assault. Forcing her to go through 9 months of emotional and physical anguish, and go through a painful labor where it's possible to die and then go through post-natal depression all for a pregnancy she never wanted. It could ruin her life forever.

Also, by not legalizing abortion you're not really stopping abortions from happening. You're just forcing women to travel to third-world countries and have an abortion under dangerous and unhealthy situations in which they might even lose their lives.

If abortion was legalized, the social stigma of having one would eradicate, and clinics and hospitals could provide a safe and healthy environment for women who choose to have an abortion. They could also offer psychological help after an abortion since an intrusive surgery like that is not only physically painful but mentally as well.

There could be an evaluation of women who would come to have an abortion to make sure these women are not coerced by boyfriends or their families to have one against their will. Or even if the reasons for wanting an abortion were merely financial, they could provide these women with financial aid. They could also offer guidance to women who are undecided by explaining the physical and mental consequences in both cases (choosing to have an abortion or keeping the baby and giving birth).
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Disney Duster wrote:I've already explained why I say you're wrong and a fetus is a living human being by the time it gets to a certain point. So right, let's not argue at this point.
Repeating something doesn't make it true.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

This fucking annoys me.
(Reuters) - Virginia would halt taxpayer-funded abortions for low-income women in cases where the fetus is severely physically deformed or mentally deficient under Republican-backed legislation passed Friday by state lawmakers.

The House of Delegates voted 64-35 to strip the Board of Health of its ability to fund abortions for Medicaid recipients when a physician certifies that the fetus would be born with a "gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency."

The measure comes amid a raft of conservative bills in the Virginia General Assembly, which shifted to the right following the 2011 general election.

Separate legislation backed by the state Senate on Wednesday would require women to be given an ultrasound and the chance to see the fetal image before an abortion is performed.

Legislation that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy was narrowly defeated in a Senate committee on Wednesday.

The Virginia Progressive Caucus said in a statement that the de-funding bill passed by the House on Friday lacked compassion and put government in the middle of a painful decision.

"When you are denying Medicaid funding for abortion, for some women you are denying their ability to get one," Democratic Delegate Jennifer McClellan argued during the House debate.

But Republican Delegate Mark Cole said the bill he co-sponsored would not ban abortions for poor women.

"All we're talking about is who's going to be forced to pay for this. There's organizations like Planned Parenthood that could pay for this," he said.

Democratic Delegate Mark Sickles told House members that only 10 abortions fitting the bill's criteria occurred last year.

The House also approved legislation on Friday that would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny placements based on religious beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality. Lawmakers approved the measure 71-28 without debate.

Under the measure, private adoption agencies would not be required to consider or consent to foster care or adoption placements in conflict with the religious tenets of the agency's sponsor or any organization or institution affiliated with the agency.

The measure prohibits damages claims for such refusals. It would put into state law a controversial Board of Social Services decision last year to allow state-licensed adoption agencies to consider sexual orientation, age, disability, gender, family status and political beliefs during placements.

Critics of the bill argue that its main intent is to allow discrimination against prospective parents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Noting that a Senate version of the bill also received final committee endorsement on Friday, Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish said lawmakers were more concerned about protecting agencies' financial interests than children in the system.

"What we're even more concerned about, there's nothing protecting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) children in the system from being placed in unfriendly homes," he said.

A spokesman for Republican Governor Bob McDonnell told Reuters in an email Friday that the governor would sign the adoption bill and review the abortion measure if they reach his desk.

(Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Tim Gaynor)
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... ZH20120203
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Super Aurora wrote:The House also approved legislation on Friday that would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny placements based on religious beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality. Lawmakers approved the measure 71-28 without debate.

Under the measure, private adoption agencies would not be required to consider or consent to foster care or adoption placements in conflict with the religious tenets of the agency's sponsor or any organization or institution affiliated with the agency.

The measure prohibits damages claims for such refusals. It would put into state law a controversial Board of Social Services decision last year to allow state-licensed adoption agencies to consider sexual orientation, age, disability, gender, family status and political beliefs during placements.

Critics of the bill argue that its main intent is to allow discrimination against prospective parents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Noting that a Senate version of the bill also received final committee endorsement on Friday, Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish said lawmakers were more concerned about protecting agencies' financial interests than children in the system.

"What we're even more concerned about, there's nothing protecting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) children in the system from being placed in unfriendly homes," he said.
This pisses me off. Even more for the fact that it's not even out-and-out discrimination, just greed.

Also, I love that last quote. Of course, the adoption agencies only see the "problem" (those dangerous homosexuals) from without not within.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.
I explained how it's not.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:If you had actually read what SA had put instead of skimming over it, you would have noticed that he was saying that by YOUR LOGIC, animals and plants aren't alive. You said that Adam wasn't 'alive' until he had free will, the ability to think, etc.
You know I did too it a little too fast, I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical. God gave him both in that moment. The Bible wouldn't have been specific enough to say things like plants are also alive.

Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
Image
User avatar
Rose Dome
Special Edition
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Sydney (Australia)

Post by Rose Dome »

Super Aurora wrote:This fucking annoys me.[...]
Same here. :evil:

This dangerous interfering with people's lives would be upsetting enough if it came out of holier than thou insensitivity alone, but the fact that it comes from greed as well just makes it all the more putrid. :angry:
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Disney Duster wrote:
Dr Frankenollie wrote:But it's just making the Biblical verse clearer - it obviously means that he was not alive until he started breathing.
I explained how it's not.
I don't think so.
Disney Duster wrote:You know I did too it a little too fast, I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical. God gave him both in that moment. The Bible wouldn't have been specific enough to say things like plants are also alive.
So...are you saying that while humans are both physically and spiritually alive, plants and animals are only physically alive? And that we're spiritually alive in the womb, but physically alive once outside? Personally, I think this is a load of nonsense you came up with to excuse the Bible's indirect approval of abortions. What does it even mean for someone to be spiritually alive? The Bible doesn't mention plants and animals not being spiritually alive yet being physically alive. Why do you believe it?
Disney Duster wrote:Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Disney Duster wrote:I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical.

Image
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

Dr Frankenollie wrote:So...are you saying that while humans are both physically and spiritually alive, plants and animals are only physically alive? And that we're spiritually alive in the womb, but physically alive once outside? Personally, I think this is a load of nonsense you came up with to excuse the Bible's indirect approval of abortions. What does it even mean for someone to be spiritually alive? The Bible doesn't mention plants and animals not being spiritually alive yet being physically alive. Why do you believe it?
Animals might be spiritually alive.

Here's a breakdown:
The Bible believes in souls and spirits, which are alive, correct?
Adam wasn't alive before the breath of life came into him, correct?
Adam's body existed, but his soul was not in him before the breath of life, correct?
Therefore Adam became alive in both senses of the word when the breath of life was put into him. Also notice it says it is "God's breath" not Adam's breath, it makes no mention of Adam breathing even though he'd have to be breathing to be alive in addition to having a soul.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
The rape itself would be more tramautizing. A woman learning to view the life growing inside her as an individual that is not the man who raped her...that's different.
Goliath wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:I should have taken more time and said that there are two different types of being alive. Spiritual and physical.
WTF
Well I by spiritually being alive I mean just having a spirit/soul.
Image
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Disney Duster wrote:Here's a breakdown:
The Bible believes in souls and spirits, which are alive, correct?
Adam wasn't alive before the breath of life came into him, correct?
Adam's body existed, but his soul was not in him before the breath of life, correct?
Therefore Adam became alive in both senses of the word when the breath of life was put into him. Also notice it says it is "God's breath" not Adam's breath, it makes no mention of Adam breathing even though he'd have to be breathing to be alive in addition to having a soul.
This interpretation wasn't as hilarious as I was hoping for... :(
Disney Duster wrote:
Dr Frankenollie wrote:Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
The rape itself would be more tramautizing. A woman learning to view the life growing inside her as an individual that is not the man who raped her...that's different.
YOU ARE EITHER LYING OR CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. PROOF:
Disney Duster wrote:Sotiris, which is more tramautizing then, being pregnant for 9 months, having the baby, and giving it up, or having an abortion?
You asked Sotiris "which is more traumatising: having the baby or having an abortion?" Yet when I say which one I think is more traumatising, you say "The rape itself would be more traumatizing, blah blah blah..." You didn't give that as an option. The options were having the baby, or having an abortion. Don't twist the facts.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Why the hell does it matter whether or not Adam was alive when God created him/breathed on him? You're all treating it like it's a historic fact. It's a fairytale!
Alphapanchito
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:12 pm

Post by Alphapanchito »

Dr Frankenollie wrote: Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.
I agree that one should be allowed to decide, as only that person knows whether or not having 9 months of pregnancy is more traumatizing than having and/or raising the child. It's different for everyone. Expecting someone to be okay with it, as Duster said, just doesn't work, because everybody is different, and some people just can't learn to do it. That is why it should be a choice. Not to mention its not alive, so its not murder. But no need going into that again.

Not directed only at you, Dr. Frank, but I am continuously astounded that everyone in this thread is only addressing rape and abortion for women. As much as we'd like to think the world is black and white, there are many (key word. it's not as uncommon as society would lead you to think) men, CAFABs (Coercively Assigned Female At Birth), and other "variants" that are raped and/or have abortions. And I can only assume you have the same opinion towards them. But just saying "women have the right to choose" is really ciscentric and non-inclusive. You are literally disregarding the experiences and issues of many when you say that, which makes you look ignorant. Just because someone can get pregnant does not mean that they are a women. I just wanted to point this out in case some just didn't realize it, and feel that its important to be inclusive of all people who have abortions, instead of only arguing for a certain type of abortion-prone person during future discussions. Personally, I feel like there is a huge hole in either argument if you only address women, because you make it seem like you don't have an opinion on male abortion. Which, I'm sure you do, and it's probably the same. But I just don't understand the point of using such a limiting word as "women", when not only women can get pregnant and have abortions. And using more inclusive terms is not difficult, and will strengthen your argument.
User avatar
Sky Syndrome
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 am
Location: Maine

Post by Sky Syndrome »

Recently, a member at another forum I'm a member of posted about being raped and impregnated by her father at fourteen-years-old and she got an abortion. The damage down there from her father raping her required staples and sutures! She thinks God is punishing her now because she and her boyfriend have been trying for a baby for six months. Also she has doctors who think she is to blame if she can't get pregnant again. I really wanted to hug the poor woman! :cry:
Image
Post Reply