A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Mar 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I don't think a two month fetus needs to be given equal consideration as the woman carrying it. However, an 8 month old fetus should be given more consideration than a 2 month old one in my opinion. If it is a medical concern, then everything should be done to try and save both the child and the mother - if this is impossible, then obviously the mothers life should be given priority.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Hmm. I wouldn't agree with that, although if you extended that to 24 weeks I might. There would still be a lot of issues to work out.

    ?? The late term abortion rate in the US and Denmark is similar (and tiny), as is the abortion rate overall (1.5% vs 1.7%)

    And again, you could trivialize the "whining" of pro-choice people with similar arguments ("they whine about women's rights on the abortion issue while they completely ignore women who are being held as slaves!") Neither approach is productive IMO.

    From my experience they care about both, and indeed agree to abortion in cases of life-threatening complications.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Definitely agreed, and to achieve that I think it's important to avoid the sort of inflammatory meaningless rhetoric that so often characterizes discussions here.
    Silly argument eh?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    But that's nearly nil. How many women do you actually think are getting abortions at 8 months? I mean hell at eight months you cannot even hide the fact. Most women choosing to have an abortion at 8 months are probably doing so for reasons dealing with pre-natal conditions. Which is fair since they're the ones who have to give the care and spend money they don't have on medical costs since there isn't any universal health care as such. For those who are not seeking an abortion due to some pre-natal condition I still think there needs some careful thought since there are still impediments to receiving an early abortion. Its not as if the majority of women who seek abortion are doing so late in the game.
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    No Bilvon they don't care. Can't you see that? What they care about is their beliefs, they don't care about children or women. They care about their beliefs. I trivialize their whining in the same way I trivialize those who whine about gay marriage. It doesn't concern nor affect them in any way at all. If you don't like gay marriage don't have one. If you don't approve of abortion don't get one. A woman who has an abortion isn't doing so because she "believes" in abortion. She is doing so out need. She isn't doing it because she "cares" about abortions or think babies are slimy parasites, she is doing it because she has to. Abortions aren't fun, they're psychologically akin to having ones tooth pulled out without anesthetic. Meaning its something one would like to avoid if they can help it and many women do avoid it. Some aren't so lucky.

    Late term abortions in Denmark and the US are not similar since in Denmark its done mostly for reasons of health and in the US its done for reasons of health and difficulties getting access to first trimester abortion either for financial reasons, difficulty finding a provider or fear. For example a teenager in Denmark doesn't have to tell their parents they are pregnant to acquire money or permission for an abortion. Its as if there are people out there who think women wait til their seventh month out of some whim or something.

    You would have a lot less women having late term abortions if abortions were free, private and easily accessible. Medical issues and pre-natal concerns are between parents and their doctors. I don't see why anyone would be so concerned with that. Since 90% of women have an abortion within the first two months my concern is protecting that availability. Late term abortions around 24 weeks in the US are 0.08%. Rare indeed and almost always carried out in a hospital not an abortion clinic.

    Silly argument? Comments on individual preference aren't arguments.
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Not a problem: damaged cognitive processes just recycle available elements like 'argument soup'.

    It's like being presented a mathematical problem in an exam and just hurling your textbooks at it.
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Exactly my point, and why I am so confused over the objection to barring LTA's without extremely good reasons; since it is such a non-issue, why not do so? It solves a few things: 1) It should, in some small part, satisfy the requirements of some of the religious crowd - we are defining the moment of personhood and setting a standard that, at the point of personhood, the fetus has the right to life. 2) It provides for a distinction that would ensure a woman has the right to abortion WITHOUT question up until that third trimester. 3) It establishes a set of regulations that would eliminate the current conflict over late-term abortions by giving a clear cut set of rules that define why an LTA would be granted.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, no. Per a 1987 study on reasons for later term (after 16 weeks) abortions:

    71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
    48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
    33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
    24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
    8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
    8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
    6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
    6% Woman didn't know timing is important
    5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
    2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

    More recent comments from two doctors who specialize in abortions:
    "If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can."[Los Angeles Times Magazine]
    About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]

    What the above tells me is that education will solve most of the problems that result in late term abortions. The 2% are a tiny fraction of the overall later term abortions.

    Definitely agreed there.

    No because I know some of these people personally, and their expressed opinion to me overrides what you imagine their opinion to be.
    Let me tell you about one of these people who "doesn't care about children or women." His name is Brian, and I went to college with him. He was our hockey team captain and while he was as aggressive as anyone else on the ice ("Hit him, Gene! Don't let him get away with that!") he never swore and he didn't drink. He was very much anti-abortion, and was active in the school's church.
    After graduation I lost track of him and caught up to him at a reunion. He was married with three kids, and was financially supporting two others. Their parents had wanted abortions because they didn't think they could afford to have a child, and he pledged to support them financially so they would avoid the abortion. (He actually made that pledge to five parents total, but three realized they could make it without his help after the child was born.)

    This is someone who you would describe as "not caring about children or women?" If so, how many children outside your family do you support?

    Most of the pro-life people you hear about are in the media because they are extremist. Most of the pro-life people in reality are pretty boring. They oppose abortion because they think it's killing an innocent child and they think that there must be an overwhelming reason (like 'the mother will die') to consider such a heinous procedure. Again I disagree - but they are not the woman-haters you make them out to be, just as I am certain you are not the child-hater the extremists might make you out to be.

    No, most of them are doing it because they didn't realize they were pregnant. I strongly suspect the Danes have the same issues - do you have any evidence that that's not the case?

    Again a silly argument, because all one has to do is show that there is no medical or financial reason that a woman "needs" an abortion and the anti-abortion crowd scores another win.
    Women get abortions because they WANT to get abortions, for any number of reasons, most of which are honestly no business but their own. That should be the right being protected.
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    But that's where you're wrong. The religious crowd would not be satisfied with simply barring LTA's, that's not their aim. They're aim is to ban abortion. Also it wouldn't satisfy the personhood standard since the religious crowd believe a person is a person at the moment of conception. The question of abortion is about questioning abortion. Not simply questioning the need for LTA's.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    More like being presented a calculus problem and replying "like I told you idiots 2+2=4. Why are you all so ignorant?"
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is true, but what if the squatter in your house is threatening to kill or harm you?
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Not all of the religious crowd thinks that way (my wife and I, for example) - and at this point, I think any headway is a good move right now.
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Yeah I know, I mention this in some other post. There is a percentage of young women who weren't aware they were pregnant and education is important in this regard. Now how do you get a religious right to allow for real sex and reproductive education in schools? There you will see why such a simple solution is such a big problem and how the religious right is setting the pro life debate. I actually had a physical education teacher who was teaching a sex education class say abortion was wrong period and he only addressed abortion because he was asked directly. So he said it was wrong. His ideas is that if you get pregnant you give it up for adoption, he didn't mention abortion at all. Why? He's a Catholic.

    You can believe it if you want Bilvon but I don't believe they care. They only care about their beliefs not the women who actually are making decisions for themselves. If they really cared about the women then they would respect their decision as their decision. It is possible however that we have different definitions on what it means to "care".

    The story of Brian is admirable. I don't give a shit if someone is pro life or anti-abortion when it comes to their own personal life. I don't care if someone is given the option of abortion and decides to keep their baby. I don't care. Its fine for me. I tip my hat to them and wish them luck. What I do care about is when these people want to legislate their personal beliefs on my life. Understand? I don't care what Brian thinks, especially since he's a male I doubly don't care what he thinks of abortion. Someone here said they found abortion repugnant. So be it. I didn't even take the time to ask them why. Why? Because I don't care why. What I do care about is if Brian tries to ban access to abortion so that I and other women don't have access to this service. That's what I care about. Whatever his reasons for not liking abortion are fine, best of British luck to him. I think abortion is personal and individual decision. Its not something that Brian the stranger can weigh in on with his two cents when it concerns the life of some other woman. He reached out to women he met from god knows where and convinced them to keep their children and will financially support them. Bully for them. Great. Break out the cigars. What does that have to do with women who are pregnant and don't want to have a child? If Brian is wealthy enough to support himself, his family and three other families to boot then good for him. I don't believe he is an example of the pro life movement. Remember that family member I told you about who hid her pregnancy? Well she had her baby. Her and the boy were both 14. She finished school. She now has three children. She is married to the boy who got her pregnant. They work, raise their children and remained married. But so what? Her story like Brian's story isn't even typical.

    I think breast implants is a heinous procedure but I don't care if women have it done. I think its fine that someone out there thinks an abortion is killing an innocent child. Its fine. I expect them not to have one. If they try and curtail my individual rights however because of their own personal feelings on the subject then we all have a problem.

    The evidence I have in terms of Denmark is that Denmark doesn't allow LTA. The stats you sight for reasons why there are LTA are from a study done in the US by the Guttmacher Institute.

    I'm not making an argument I am stating a fact. A woman doesn't go out and have an abortion because she "believes" in abortion. She gets one because its what she feels she needs. And when you say this argument is silly? I would like to know who you think you are to tell a woman that her reasons for wanting or having an abortion are silly? How do you know of another's medical and financial reasons? And say there are no financial or medical impediments the fact that the woman does not want to have a child is reason enough for me. What you don't seem to realize is that no woman would wait until the seventh or eighth month for an abortion IF SHE CAN HELP IT. No woman if she's in her right mind would do so for no good reason at all.

    Is it so unusual for someone's wants to be someone's need?
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    Fine but I don't believe that the exceptions are driving the debate. If it were so then the debate would be very very different.
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Thing is, the exceptions are - the majority of the religious crowd is actually quite rational and open to accepting the opinions of other groups. The problem is, the loudest, most obnoxious among us are the ones that get used as our "poster children"... it's like people from the south - they aren't all redneck retards, and in fact many of them are quite intelligent and polite, but those are the ones that always end up on TV explaining what the tornado sounded like.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed; indeed, they comprise the majority of women asking for late term abortions.

    You demand it. That's been working; 67% of US kids under 18 now receive comprehensive sex ed (including birth control) in schools. We still have a ways to go of course.

    As long as he's covering birth control and STD prevention, he's doing his job. A teacher's job is to teach the facts of birth control and STD prevention, not convince anyone that abortion is right or wrong. (Although he is free to have those opinions.)

    Yes. Brian is an example of someone who cares a lot about women and children AND wants to "remove the right to choose." I disagree with his position on that, but he is far more caring than even most pro-choice people. Such people are not anomalies, although few go to the lengths he goes.

    One of the easiest ways to lose an argument in the public discourse is to engage in systematic stereotyping. Muslims are violent. Gays are promiscuous and immoral. Pro-life people don't care about women. We have, fortunately, gotten to a point in our society where such prejudices are recognized as almost universally bad, and this weakens the argument presented by such people.

    If they don't want to have a child because they think they can't afford it, it has a great deal to do with it. Indeed, of all the people I have met in this debate, he is about the only one I've met who is actually DOING something about the problem.

    Right. But if someone said "anyone who gets pregnant at age 14 is going to ruin their life" that example would disprove that statement.

    If your fact is that some women need abortions, and thus should get them, then OK. But again it is trivial to prove that in some cases she really doesn't need it, she just wants it. And per your argument that second woman does not have a right to an abortion since she doesn't need one.

    If you think that the woman who merely wants an abortion has a right to one as well, then your fact is untrue.

    Of course they do. Some women wait until late term because they do not want to tell their parents.

    In any case, you just proved my point above with the bolded word. It is not NEED, it is WANT.
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member


    If a sex educator teacher speaks of teen pregnancy and then gives options excluding abortion and doesn't speak about what a woman should know about unwanted pregnancy, keeping track of periods etc. then they are not giving a comprehensive outline at all. Why do you think so many women didn't know they were pregnant? Because they were getting such a good sex ed? Why do you think so many young women didn't know the dangers of LTA? Because the sex ed was comprehensive? Why don't they know anything about where to access an abortion? Because the sex education is comprehensive? You're not being honest somehow which is why young people are so clueless. How can you have an honest comprehensive sex education class that excludes options and information?

    You say Brian is an example of a pro life person who cares about women and children. Fine. But you cannot say Brian is an example of those in the pro life movement anymore than I can say Julia's experience (an extended family member) is a standard example of what happens during teenage pregnancy.

    What is wrong with a woman simply wanting an abortion?

    One of my best friends was married and had a problem in her marriage. She has two young boys. Anyway she got pregnant again and decided to get an abortion. The marriage was stabilized and she got pregnant again with a girl and now has three children. The marriage dissolved anyway. She doesn't regret the abortion and why should she since she has three beautiful children. Is she right or wrong? She didn't have any reason to have an abortion other than that is what she wanted. She's also Danish.

    What about another woman. She's in a medical residency program. She get's pregnant and decides to abort because she is completely focused on being a surgeon. She doesn't seem to ever want children. She has an abortion and doesn't regret it because she now focuses on what she loves, on what drives her. Is she wrong or right?

    You see the question of someone elses choices is irrelevant when they are not our own. We can only understand and appreciate our choices and decisions, not that of another. Especially if it can never ever be your choice. A man never has to decide whether to keep a baby in his womb or not. A man can only tell a woman what he prefer's and what support or lack thereof he can offer.

    So let's just call it a want and not a need if you like. I'll give you that.

    Now explain to me what's wrong with a woman having an abortion because its what she wants?
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Nothing is wrong with that - the issue I have is the rare cases in which a woman waits until the 7th or 8th month to do so as it is not only much more difficult and dangerous to do so, but the fetus is sufficiently developed that the abortion could very easily fail and result instead in a severely damaged/deformed child being born instead of a healthy one (not to mention the pain inflicted upon the fetus, but apparently the jury is still out on that in terms of a finalized yes/no they can or cannot)
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed, their job is to teach sexual health including prevention of STD's and use of contraception. If they say "but abortion is wrong" ALONG with that information that doesn't play into their jobs. They should probably keep their opinions to themselves but have at least done their jobs.
    Because they were dumb? I knew a lot of kids who sat through middle school science and learned not a thing. Because they were so overweight they had neither regular menses nor noticed the weight gain? Lots of potential reasons.
    Here comes that anger again. Even though I agree with you you are calling me a liar.
    You can't.
    Both are examples. Neither is the standard. Like every other aspect of life, every person is different.
    Well, you'll have to take that up with Ms. Lucysnow who said that they NEED abortions, rather than just want them.
    BTW there is plenty wrong with abortions; it means that the first line of defense has failed, and a woman got pregnant against their desires. Abortion is a poor solution to that, but one I think should be available to women who want it. It's like discussing mastectomies. Are they bad? In general, yes; no one should have them unless they medically need them. They're traumatic, painful and can leave scars both physical and mental. But they should be available to women who want them, because in some cases the alternative is worse.

    I think it's wrong to get pregnant and then abort a child purely for convenience. Depends entirely upon the circumstances. Was it medically necessary to prevent death, risk of death or suffering? Then that's not wrong at all. Did she try to use contraception, then have it fail? Then it's not all that wrong; it's a backup to a well-intentioned use of contraceptives. Did she plan to have the child, then the marital problems got in the way? That's also not all that wrong; no one can plan for every contingency. But did she just not care, and figured "what the hell, I'll just abort it if I get pregnant?" Then that is wrong, IMO. But again, she should be the one to make the decision.

    See above; depends on the circumstances. She should always have the _right_ to get one.

    I'd be careful there. If men should have no say over abortions, women should have no say over palimony. After all, you will never pay it.
    IMO it should not be used for contraception. It is killing a potential human life, and that is not something we should do without good reason. Whether or not it is wrong in any specific case depends on the circumstances; a "one size fits all" answer almost never works.
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    billvon, your position confounds me somewhat - it sounds like you do not approve of the idea of unnecessary abortion, yet you agree that abortion is, in some instances, necessary.

    Is that an accurate description of it?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page