Poll Shows Majority of Americans Believe Abortion ?Almost Always Bad? for Women

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
Clearly, I've missed something in your arguement. You claim that we are all argueing the "facts" as you have presented them. And you got these facts from the Roe vs Wade Decision. These facts that we are arguing are basically that the human embryo is a human (therefore you extract that to mean it should have human rights that we all share.) Yet, in Roe vs Wade they allowed for abortion (which is where you claim to have gotten these facts). So how can the very court decision that defends the womans right to have an abortion be the proof that abortion should be illegal.

Also, just to let you know. Never say something to the affect of "Really, I know a lot about this topic.". The instant you have to tell people you know what you're talking about, you're doing piss poor job of conveying your message or you don't as much as you think. I'll trust your claim and assume you're in the former.

One last thing, you have not clearly articulated the issues as laid out by Roe vs Wade. Perhaps you should start there.

Yeah, this week has been pretty rough for me offline, sorry that I haven't been up to par. Here goes another try.

Facts: The key distinction that I apparently didn't convey very well is that Roe v Wade makes a distinction between humans and persons, where persons are assigned rights but humans are not necessarily. I was trying to ask how such a distinction can be made. The USSC in Roe v Wade made this distinction by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Since the word 'born' was included in this amendment, the USSC used it to allow abortion. However, the history of this amendment is important if you want to consider this distinction more closely. At the time of its passing (1868 - it's called the Civil Rights Amendment because it was intended to grant equal rights to blacks after the Civil War), every state had laws prohibiting abortion.

Opinion: Thus, it is clear that the intention of the amendment had nothing to do with restricting rights to those who had not yet been 'born'. Rather, it was intended to give rights to those who did not have them previously rather than restrict them from anyone.

Your argument regarding cognitive function is on the right track - trying to make some distinction as to why a fetus might not be a person. I can't recall exactly what you were arguing, since we were rudely interrupted by Captain Ignorance.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Clearly, I've missed something in your arguement. You claim that we are all argueing the "facts" as you have presented them. And you got these facts from the Roe vs Wade Decision. These facts that we are arguing are basically that the human embryo is a human (therefore you extract that to mean it should have human rights that we all share.) Yet, in Roe vs Wade they allowed for abortion (which is where you claim to have gotten these facts). So how can the very court decision that defends the womans right to have an abortion be the proof that abortion should be illegal.

Also, just to let you know. Never say something to the affect of "Really, I know a lot about this topic.". The instant you have to tell people you know what you're talking about, you're doing piss poor job of conveying your message or you don't as much as you think. I'll trust your claim and assume you're in the former.

One last thing, you have not clearly articulated the issues as laid out by Roe vs Wade. Perhaps you should start there.

Yeah, this week has been pretty rough for me offline, sorry that I haven't been up to par. Here goes another try.

Facts: The key distinction that I apparently didn't convey very well is that Roe v Wade makes a distinction between humans and persons, where persons are assigned rights but humans are not necessarily. I was trying to ask how such a distinction can be made. The USSC in Roe v Wade made this distinction by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Since the word 'born' was included in this amendment, the USSC used it to allow abortion. However, the history of this amendment is important if you want to consider this distinction more closely. At the time of its passing (1868 - it's called the Civil Rights Amendment because it was intended to grant equal rights to blacks after the Civil War), every state had laws prohibiting abortion.

Opinion: Thus, it is clear that the intention of the amendment had nothing to do with restricting rights to those who had not yet been 'born'. Rather, it was intended to give rights to those who did not have them previously rather than restrict them from anyone.

Your argument regarding cognitive function is on the right track - trying to make some distinction as to why a fetus might not be a person. I can't recall exactly what you were arguing, since we were rudely interrupted by Captain Ignorance.

Interesting. Thank you.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I want a single argument as to WHY it is a person. You can scream that it is all day, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to accord rights to the fetus as a person, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it is' and force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

As always, your logic is completely flawed. The fetus is undeniably human. Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood, not the other way around. I already linked to an entire thread that I created on this very topic. Your continued voluntary ignorance is hardly cause for me to waste time typing it all over again. Do your own legwork.

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
No,I am however expecting so called "christians" who want ever pregnancy brought to term no matter how much devastation it brings to vote "yes" on questions involving the use of our tax dollars to assist,
infants,children and the disabled.

To force women to bring pregnancies to term, then smugly stand back and say that you oppose the spending of your tax dollars to assist those families is flat out wrong.

The first consideration is the point that you're making and I am inclined to agree with to a certain extent. If abortion is outlawed, then society must be willing to pick up the slack to aid those with unwanted children. I will purport that such support is already available for anyone who wants it and actively seeks it to any degree through private organizations and/or the government. The difference is that you want the government to pick up all the slack so that these women don't have to simply ask for help - it will just be given.

This brings us to the second point. The woman chose to get pregnant through her actions (barring rape which comprises <<1% of abortions, so I will neglect it for simplicity). So, based on this choice by the woman, why should taxpayers foot the bill? The woman can be reasonably expected to foot the bill for her own actions, but is it fair to ask everyone else to shoulder your burden, the one that you chose freely?

So, the conclusion that I can reach is that there is an enormous amount of private support available for any such women. I won't regale you right now with my own experiences in this area, but I know from personal experience that even in small towns, there is ALWAYS help if someone simply has the humility to ask for it. Reliance on the government for this aid simply isn't the best solution. I'm not in any way condemning women who get pregnant out of wedlock or otherwise. Instead, I would argue that the government is not the solution to every problem. I would think that government aid would be more readily available were abortion laws to be reenacted, however, as a matter of social responsibility, but on a personal level people need not run to the government every time something goes awry.

/incoherent ramble

Why should I or any other family be forced to be "humilated" in order to receive some supports for a child born handicapped thru no fault or wrong doing? I know darn few families who can foot a bill that can run into the millions to care for one of these kids, heck some premies now cost 1 mil just to bring home from the hospital,that's not counting a single penny for early intervention,ongoing special medical care, speech,physical,occupational therapy, specialized daycare etc.


If disabled children are so "special" if they're "gifts from God" then why must their parents walk the streets with a begging bowl to get help for them ?

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

It's a lot more honest than calling them "god's special children" then firmly voting "no" on any tax question that would make their lives or the lives of their struggling families a bit easier .

Btw, I vote "yes" on issues impacting children,the elderly,the disabled, the thought that an infant should go without medical care so that I can save myself a few dollars to blow at mall sickens me.

Where in America has an infant gone without medical care? Can you point out some examples to me?

Are your talking about votes for specific candidates, referendums??? Can I get some examples of what issues you voted "yes" on?

So I take it that you agree with aborting handicapped babies? What if the baby is the "wrong" sex, has the wrong eye color, or is too short? Would abortion be okay in those cases too?

Most insurance companies limit assistance with speech or physical therapy to 60/90 days of treatment, and are increasingly refusing to pay for anything besides one time diagonistic testing for developmental disabilities.There's one insurance company that doesn't do that and that's medicare.. however in order to receive medicare for a disabled child the family must fiscally qualify for at least $1.00 of SSI income for the child.

Last time I checked, the max gross income that would allow a family of 3 to qualify for $1 in SSI money was $1,552 per month and this was several years ago.

My child and tens of thousands of kids like him are going without needed services simply because our employer provided insurancies won't cover them, we earn too much to get any help but not enough to pay out of pocket for the care.You get to choose, do I continue to work and try to support my family,yes including your normal children or do I sell everything,quit my job and become a welfare case to get the disabled child care?

I don't feel it is my place to dictate a choice to parents on this issue.The descion about what to do with a problem pregnancy best belongs between the woman and her doctor imho.

 

[Geardo]

The country has been on a downhill slide since women were allowed to vote!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Geardo
The country has been on a downhill slide since women were allowed to vote!

Obviously your mother could of used the help Geekbabe was talking about!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Facts: The key distinction that I apparently didn't convey very well is that Roe v Wade makes a distinction between humans and persons, where persons are assigned rights but humans are not necessarily. I was trying to ask how such a distinction can be made. The USSC in Roe v Wade made this distinction by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Since the word 'born' was included in this amendment, the USSC used it to allow abortion. However, the history of this amendment is important if you want to consider this distinction more closely. At the time of its passing (1868 - it's called the Civil Rights Amendment because it was intended to grant equal rights to blacks after the Civil War), every state had laws prohibiting abortion.

Opinion: Thus, it is clear that the intention of the amendment had nothing to do with restricting rights to those who had not yet been 'born'. Rather, it was intended to give rights to those who did not have them previously rather than restrict them from anyone.

How odd, that you would fail to make explicit this US legal context when stating that a test tube embryo is "a human", and that a clear distinction exists between a "human" and a "person". The definitions of certain terms you provided (human, person) were from an English dictionary, not from a legal decision or ruling. You did not say you were working specifically with definitions from Roe v Wade. Do you think posters on this forum can read your mind? It's also interesting that you simply assume that you get to establish the terms &amp; definitions of this debate. Do you think all posters on this forum are US citizens? I am not an American citizen, I have only passing interest in Roe v Wade. The legal landscape is quite different here in Australia. Don't assume I am working with your non-standard (i.e., legal, technical) definitions of the common English words central to this debate. In terms of plain English, i.e., notwithstanding any parochial legal rulings or definitions you may have in mind, your assertion that a fetus or embryo is a human (i.e., a person) is not acceptable.
[/quote]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Your argument regarding cognitive function is on the right track - trying to make some distinction as to why a fetus might not be a person. I can't recall exactly what you were arguing, since we were rudely interrupted by Captain Ignorance.

Lol, being called ignorant by Captain Pompous doesn't exactly sting.

 

[MrPALCO]

"I don't feel it is my place to dictate a choice to parents on this issue.The descion about what to do with a problem pregnancy best belongs between the woman and her doctor imho."

What other difficulties associated with child rearing or disease should be solved using this method?

BTW, when should "feelings" be used as a guide for anything. Do what God says and don't murder.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"I don't feel it is my place to dictate a choice to parents on this issue.The descion about what to do with a problem pregnancy best belongs between the woman and her doctor imho."

What other difficulties associated with child rearing or disease should be solved using this method?

BTW, when should "feelings" be used as a guide for anything. Do what God says and don't murder.

I dunno.. you use your "feelings" to justify not using tax dollars to assist people like my son.


It appears to me that you and others of your ilk do believe in abortion.What's the difference between a disabled fetus being aborted and a 45 yr old retarded man dying due to lack of care and social services?

I'll tell you what, years of suffering and pain and that's what you zealots want.. suffering and pain.At least people like the eskimo are honest about it, the disabled,the terminally sick,the feeble old get put outdoors on the ice to die.

 

[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]

Abortion is wrong. Perhaps if we allow that, we should allow people to kill each other without consequence?

 

[Whaspe]

Are you saying you want your son dead Geekbabe? That instead of having him you wish you had killed him in your womb?
I understand what you are saying about funding, however, it seems your argument against prolife and funding are improperly mixed. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Facts: The key distinction that I apparently didn't convey very well is that Roe v Wade makes a distinction between humans and persons, where persons are assigned rights but humans are not necessarily. I was trying to ask how such a distinction can be made. The USSC in Roe v Wade made this distinction by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Since the word 'born' was included in this amendment, the USSC used it to allow abortion. However, the history of this amendment is important if you want to consider this distinction more closely. At the time of its passing (1868 - it's called the Civil Rights Amendment because it was intended to grant equal rights to blacks after the Civil War), every state had laws prohibiting abortion.

Opinion: Thus, it is clear that the intention of the amendment had nothing to do with restricting rights to those who had not yet been 'born'. Rather, it was intended to give rights to those who did not have them previously rather than restrict them from anyone.

How odd, that you would fail to make explicit this US legal context when stating that a test tube embryo is "a human", and that a clear distinction exists between a 'human' and a 'person'. The definitions of certain terms you provided (human, person) were from an English dictionary, not from a legal decision or ruling. You did not say you were working specifically with definitions from Roe v Wade. Do you think posters on this forum can read your mind? It's also interesting that you simply assume that you get to establish the terms, definitions of this debate. Do you think all posters on this forum are US citizens? I am not an American citizen, I have only passing interest in Roe v Wade. The legal landscape is quite different here in Australia. Don't assume I am working with your non-standard (i.e., legal, technical) definitions of the common English words central to this debate. In terms of plain English, i.e., notwithstanding any parochial legal rulings or definitions you may or may not have in mind, your assertion that a fetus or embryo is a human (i.e., a person) is not acceptable.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Your argument regarding cognitive function is on the right track - trying to make some distinction as to why a fetus might not be a person. I can't recall exactly what you were arguing, since we were rudely interrupted by Captain Ignorance.

Lol, being called ignorant by Captain Pompous A$$hole doesn't exactly sting.

[/quote]

Regardless of what country you live in, decisions in other countries legal systems have a large impact in the bringing in of new "liberties" into a country that currently ban them. The idea of introducing and supporting such measures, suddenly gains merit and weight.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Are you saying you want your son dead Geekbabe? That instead of having him you wish you had killed him in your womb?
I understand what you are saying about funding, however, it seems your argument against prolife and funding are improperly mixed. Two wrongs don't make a right.

its clear she wants her kid dead...

edited to remove the personal attack on the person who posted the above quote.
as fun as it was, better judgement got the better of me.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Are you saying you want your son dead Geekbabe? That instead of having him you wish you had killed him in your womb?
I understand what you are saying about funding, however, it seems your argument against prolife and funding are improperly mixed. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As far as I know, autism cannot be detected until after the birth of the child.

For radical abortionists, killing is a viable solution to life's problems.

You didn't conceive the child that you expected? That's okay, just murder it.

 

[Steeplerot]

radical abortionists? you mean the people who blow up clinics right?
I have never known someone radical in favor of such a terrible thing to have to do.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
radical abortionists? you mean the people who blow up clinics right?
I have never known someone radical in favor of such a terrible thing to have to do.

I don't have any idea what you just said, but let me ask you this:

Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the murder of 45 million babies since 1973?

 

[Steeplerot]

what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

edited becasue I am disappointed no heart-tugging pics of aborted fetuses, your slipping rip...

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

edited becasue I am disappointed no heart-tugging pics of aborted fetuses, your slipping rip...

You find pics of aborted babies "heart tugging"?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

edited becasue I am disappointed no heart-tugging pics of aborted fetuses, your slipping rip...

You find pics of aborted babies "heart tugging"?

Do you? or do you just spam abortion topics in this forum for attention?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

edited becasue I am disappointed no heart-tugging pics of aborted fetuses, your slipping rip...

You find pics of aborted babies "heart tugging"?

Do you? or do you just spam abortion topics in this forum for attention?

Yes, I find pictures of dead babies heart-tugging, as do most people.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?

1. Fixed.

2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?

1. Fixed.

2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.

C'est la DEATH.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Riprorin


C'est la DEATH.

da da da what a comeback rip! you sure knocked em dead....(of course he's grown so that's ok)
more

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*

Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.

Imagine if we all took personal responsibility for our behavior and stopped blaming others?