VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
 

Shaoken:

"Many clinics always perform this." Citation needed. IF so many do it then this legislation would not be required, Likewise you need proof that a doctor needs to have this particular form of ultrasound to perform an abortion, since by your own admission not every abortion clinic performs them, showing that they are, in fact, not needed.

So you ended up contradicting yourself in the same paragraph by admiting not all clinics perform them, thus they don't "need" to be done.

I originally posted this on the previous page. I only just realized this is for medical abortions, the source also has figures for surgical abortions.

"Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it. However, an additional 2 (5%) sites did vaginal ultrasound before the procedure only under certain conditions and 1 (3%) site never did. Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

There's sources in the article. I personally think this bill is to ensure all clinics do this because it is considered standard practice.

"According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won't consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group's national standards.

Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.

"But if she's uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she's not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure," Schreiber told me."

F4LL3N:

Shaoken:

"Many clinics always perform this." Citation needed. IF so many do it then this legislation would not be required, Likewise you need proof that a doctor needs to have this particular form of ultrasound to perform an abortion, since by your own admission not every abortion clinic performs them, showing that they are, in fact, not needed.

So you ended up contradicting yourself in the same paragraph by admiting not all clinics perform them, thus they don't "need" to be done.

I originally posted this on the previous page. I only just realized this is for medical abortions, the source also has figures for surgical abortions.

"Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it. However, an additional 2 (5%) sites did vaginal ultrasound before the procedure only under certain conditions and 1 (3%) site never did. Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

There's sources in the article. I personally think this bill is to ensure all clinics do this because it is considered standard practice.

"According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won't consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group's national standards.

Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.

"But if she's uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she's not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure," Schreiber told me."

ooh its alright then, they are only wanting to rape a small percentage of women who want an abortion..... wait thats not right

it does not matter that a majority of women would have it done anyway, its still fucking rape if they do not consent.

reonhato:
ooh its alright then, they are only wanting to rape a small percentage of women who want an abortion..... wait thats not right

it does not matter that a majority of women would have it done anyway, its still fucking rape if they do not consent.

No it's not. If they don't consent it won't happen. This bill would have been instantly crushed if it said "stick things in the vaggy whether they like it or not, lol." Get a grip.

F4LL3N:

Kendarik:
Ok, well then you are consistent in your logic at least.

I'm more than a bit shocked that you think that a mother should be treated as a criminal for her eating habits though. Would you then arrest and force feed the roughly 1/3 of mothers in the US who do not have proper nutrition while pregnant on the basis that they are negligent/child abusers?

What's so shocking? Common sense would suggest you eat healthy regardless of pregnancy. If they can't afford it, then the government should supply aid. Otherwise, take responsibility for your actions. It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't have them arrested and force fed. They'd simply get a thorough warning if anything were to happen to the unborn child they would be up for charges.

The government DOESN'T supply enough aid in many cases.

And where do you draw the line on her poor habits? How do you enforce it? How do you find out to warn her? How do you deal with the fact that stress induced by major changes can be harmful to the baby?

No, the government should not be able to make arbitrary decisions of this type.

F4LL3N:

jimClassic:

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

It is. This is government sanctioned rape. This is why America's going down the crapper.

I disproved this little claim earlier on in the discussion. I don't care to find the post; however, you'll find that transvaginal ultrasounds are normally always preformed before and again after an early term pregnancy. It's standard practice.

What? What does "early term pregnancy" mean?

As to it being required at ANY point in a pregnancy, please show me your proof from a medical source. While it CAN be used and is sometimes indicated, most ultrasounds are done either with portable units or the large fixed units (which give the best resolution and all sorts of computer modelling based on the data captured). Generally in medicine they go "less invasive" when possible.

Transvag is used primarily when it isn't practical to use the fixed unit and you can't get good picture on the portable for some reason.

Kendarik:
The government DOESN'T supply enough aid in many cases.

And where do you draw the line on her poor habits? How do you enforce it? How do you find out to warn her? How do you deal with the fact that stress induced by major changes can be harmful to the baby?

No, the government should not be able to make arbitrary decisions of this type.

It's called education and support systems. Abortion takes the easy route and simply gets rid of the "problem."

Kendarik:
What? What does "early term pregnancy" mean?

As to it being required at ANY point in a pregnancy, please show me your proof from a medical source. While it CAN be used and is sometimes indicated, most ultrasounds are done either with portable units or the large fixed units (which give the best resolution and all sorts of computer modelling based on the data captured). Generally in medicine they go "less invasive" when possible.

Transvag is used primarily when it isn't practical to use the fixed unit and you can't get good picture on the portable for some reason.

You know what I mean...

As someone else stated several days ago, a transvaginal ultrasound is needed at early stages of pregnancy because other forms do not pick up on early stage embyros because they are so small.

I assume it's standard practice to ensure they are using the correct method and again after to ensure the abortion was successful. If you looked at the source, transvaginal ultrasounds are nearly always used in 'medical abortions', while not quite so often in 'surgical abortions.'

If a mother goes in and says, "I'm only 4 weeks pregnant" but is really 12+ weeks, and the abortionist takes her word for it, you could end up with some major problems. Medical abortions are generally done up until 9 weeks; after that, it's surgical abortions. They NEED to determine the gestational age before doing an abortion.

Medical abortions can fail, even if the embyro is less than 9 weeks old (but especially if the embyro is 9+ weeks old.) In a medical abortion, the mother is meant to give birth to a dead embyro. This doesn't always happen, because medical abortions are not 100% successful.

Anyone who doesn't do it should be charged with medical negligence. And any women who refuses will be refused abortion. You're all arguing against something that's meant to keep the women safe, funnily enough; because none of you bothered to do research on the matter. Although some of what I've said is assumed rather than 100% factual. But it's an educated assumption from what I have read.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/medical_abortion.html

EDIT: The source says, "Before any abortion can be done, a medical professional must confirm that a woman is indeed pregnant and determine how long she has been pregnant."

Hello, Seekster. I know this is a couple of weeks old but this has been bugging me and I really want to engage with you on the subjects you have brought up in this thread. This is going to be a very long post, for which I make no apologies. It's taken a long time, I couldn't write it all in one go, but once I started I couldn't bear to give up on it, at the very least I just wanted it off my chest. For me, it's not even primarily about the question of abortion any more, but more about your process of debating and reaching conclusions. I'm content to leave people be when their opinions conflict with mine, but it really rubs me the wrong way when people try to rationalise such opinions with what appears to be severely impaired reasoning.

First of all, I just want to collate many of your statements from this thread, so that we're all clear on what's been said and I don't have to keep searching back through the thread to cover each point. I'm not trying to catch you out contradicting yourself. Where I've quoted you without adressing the quote, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what I've quoted, just keeping a track of what you've said, your overall position. You've made nearly a hundred posts in this thread, and that's no exaggeration, so sorry if I miss anything or ask a question that's already been answered. And if you think that I've missed out any important context when quoting you, please be so kind as to say what that context is and how you think it changes the meaning of the quote. I've made sure it's easy enough for you to refer back to the post that each quote is taken from, via the link at the top of each quote. You don't have to read it all in one go. You don't even have to read it at all, if you really don't want to. And I hope I don't seem confrontational at all; I hope I am being polite and considerate, and my attempts at brevity don't come across as abruptness.

Miscellany

Seekster:
As far as we can tell a person does not feel pain when they are executed by guillotine so then why did we ever get rid of such a painless method of execution (assuming you are actually going to keep execution which like abortion should only even be considered in the worst cases if it is used at all).

Supporters of the death penalty often prefer methods that cause a great deal of pain.

Seekster:
Look at it this way, if your dog poops on your carpet and you kill your dog, that is a crime.

Pooping on a carpet is not quite the same thing, is it? If a dog climbs inside your ass and could stay there for three quarters of a year and the only way to get it out is to kill it, I think that would count as self defence.

Seekster:

The answer I'm guessing comes straight from George Orwell:

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."

With respect to Mr. Orwell I would ask what he means by that statement.

I want to answer this although it's not really on topic, because Orwell is one of my favourite authors and I just want to clear up your confusion because you appear not to be aware of the origin of this quotation. Animal Farm is a novel about farm animals that rise up against their human masters and take over the running of their farm for themselves, in an allegory of the Russian revolution and other similar vanguard-led revolutions. Immediately after taking over, the animals adopt the slogan "all animals are equal", but after a while the pigs emerge as the new leaders of the farm, taking on the same roles that the humans once held, and they change the slogan to "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" as a way to keep more wealth for themselves. The comparison of your position on the sacredness of life to the position of the pigs in Animal Farm is meant to suggest that your thought process on this matter bears some similarity to the thought process of a totalitarian ideology, simply changing its dogma to suit its convenience. I don't agree or disagree with that comparison, I'm just explaining what was meant.

Seekster:
Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation.

Logic does not dictate anything, ever. Logic is simply a way of getting from a set of assumptions to a set of conclusions.

Seekster:
Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

Logic is reason. If you start from the assumption that the needs of society always trump the needs of individuals, then logical inference will tell you that it is illogical to take care of those who cannot contribute to society. If, however, you reject the idea that society is always more important that individuals, and instead start from the assumption that suffering is bad, then logical inference will tell you that it is logical to care for the elderly and disabled. Logic can't tell you what to do unless you give it some a priori assumptions like that to work from. We must use logic throughout this thread, as there is nothing else we can use to build arguments. For example, when you say "life is rare, therefore it is valuable, therefore it is sacred," you are using logical inference. Even "it's wrong because God says it's wrong" is a form of logic.

Sacredness of life

Seekster:
It is horrifying to me that people do not consider protecting life, particularly life that either is human or will soon become human, to not be good. Horrifying and sickening.

This is dependent upon your belief that life, especially human life, has a special significance, even when it has not yet reached the stage of even limited sentience, perception, awareness, feeling or sapience, which we will address below.

Seekster:
whether you believe in God or not life is a sacred thing and should not be so callously tossed aside just because the existence of a life would be an inconvenience.

Seekster:
life, particularly human life (perhaps due to our bias as we are all human here) is sacred and should not be ended lightly.

Seekster:
Even IF life is as prevalent in the Universe as the most optimistic estimates predict, its still the exception and not the rule and so life should be treated with at least some degree of reverence, not savagely violated and then tossed in the garbage.

Seekster:
Uranium isnt alive but yes its rare so its valuable, more valuable than elements that are more prevalent.

Seekster:
Life is sacred because it is precious and it is precious because it is rare.

Seekster:
Life is sacred because it is precious, it is precious because it is rare. Uranimum is rare so it is precious but it is not alive so it is not sacred.

You're just running in circles there. Life is sacred because it is rare. Uranium is rare but not sacred because it's not life, which is sacred because it is rare.

You admit that rarity is not sufficient for sacredness, because not all rare things are sacred, so you still haven't explained what it is about life that makes it sacred while not making uranium sacred.

Seekster:
The mentions of heavy elements are absurd and have nothing at all to do with what I said. The arguments made for heavy elements do not work with what I said. I would say my argument is sound.

The arguments for heavy elements do work with what you said, and that argument is not sound for that reason.

Seekster:
Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded. For this reason abortion, the death penalty, and war should only be considered as options in rare worst-case scenarios.

Seekster:
Yes I believe all life is sacred. That is not to say all life is equally sacred though perhaps in the eyes of God it is and should be in our eyes. I am all but certain that to God all human life is sacred though it is hard to imagine how God could think so at times.

It is hard to believe your stance on this issue is not a religious one when you say things like this.

Whatever you think you think, I think that what you think is forever entangled with your religious upbringing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just pointing it out as it seems to be something you have a hard time admitting. What I think is forever entangled with my secular upbringing, just the same.

Seekster:
all life is sacred and it is immoral to take a life.

Seekster:
I think the point is worth clarifying that not all life is equally sacred. A human life for example is more sacred than that of a animal and certainly more than a plant. That is what I believe anyway.

Seekster:
I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans)

But you agree that religious beliefs and species bias are both arbitrary means of forming an opinion? So that whether it is based on religion or species bias, your belief that human life is worth more than animal life is an arbitrary one?

For the record though, I think there are a few good reasons why human life should be worth more than animal life, one being sapience or self-awareness. But you didn't mention that, you simply appealed to belief and species bias.

Seekster:
Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

Now you are saying that rights are sacred, as well as life. They may well be, but are you maybe confusing life itself with the right to life? They are two separate things.

Seekster:
All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Seekster:
In this context sacred means "has inherent significance and worth" though I am not sure if that definition does the term justice it at least gets you in the ballpark of what it means.

However I try to define it, it always comes down to worth, qualified with adjectives like inherent, intrinsic, fundamental, essential, which all suggest it is an a priori property, not one that can be inferred a posteriori from some measurable attribute like rarity. (Glossary: a posteriori = there is a definite reason why it is so; a priori = it just is, no other reason.)

So I pulled out the thesaurus to try to find some similar word that I would be comfortable using to describe life, and actually, I like the word "reverend". On the face of it, more explicitly religious, but really it just means worthy of respect. It does not suggest an a priori reason that it should be worthy of respect, so it leaves the door open for a posteriori reasons. Some such reasons might be sentience or subjective experience, the capacity for suffering, and like you said, rarity or scarcity.

Seekster:
You realize that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" right? Its a bit of anecdotal evidence but my point is that the term sacred can be used without a religious meaning attached to it.

So why did Jefferson change it in the second draft? Perhaps because he realised it suggested a religious meaning, which was undesirable in that context.

Whether "sacred" is meant in a religious way or not, I still contend that it suggests that the decision about whether something is sacred or not is an arbitrary one. Sacredness can be conferred by religious dogma, or by the prevailing beliefs of a secular society, but it is not a property that can be objectively measured or inferred from empirical knowledge.

It is very difficult for an atheist to know what a religious person means when they say "sacred", whether they think they mean it in a religious way or not. It is simply not a word that I've encountered often enough to have built up an understanding of what it could mean outside of a religious context.

Seekster:
I said all life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. In other words all living things have a right to live (ability is another story but I digress).

Seekster:
The inference from what I said was all life has the right to live but sometimes one life may interfere with another life.

Seekster:
As I said, all life is sacred, but all life is not equally sacred.

Morality and "justifiable immorality"

Seekster:
Humans have to eat and we like meat so we are going to kill other animals for food.

Seekster:
However just as killing is immoral even in times of war or in self defense, there are times when an immoral act can be justified.

Seekster:
Killing and eating animals is necessary to survive (we are omnivores that means both plants AND animals are on the menu).

No, meat is not necessary to our survival. We can get by just fine without it.

Seekster:
Killing in self defense (ie kill or be killed or even risk being killed) is morally justifiable.

Agreed.

Seekster:
[Killing animals for their meat is] immoral but not unjustifiable. Killing Bin Laden was technically immoral but Ill be damned if it wasnt justifiable.

Seekster:
Just because something is justifiable doesnt mean its moral.

Seekster:
If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you or is even trying to rob you you can shoot and kill that person. Technically its immoral but its absolutely justifiable. Would you consider something like that murder?

If you kill someone to save a life (your own or someone else's) that is moral. If you kill someone to protect mere property, that is neither moral nor justifiable. Yes killing someone to protect mere property is murder in these here parts, and rightly so.

Seekster:
As I said, just because something is justifiable doesnt make it moral.

Seekster:
The death penalty involves ending the life of a human being and is therefore immoral. However I believe the death penalty, just like war or abortion, CAN be justified as an option of last resort.

Seekster:
Just because something is immoral does not mean it cannot be justified.

Seekster:
I already told you that something can be justified but still be immoral. Do you accept that or not?

Seekster:
Its immoral to break into someone's house and kill them, in Bin Laden's case it was justifiable even if technically it was immoral.

Seekster:
Remember I said that just because something can be justified doesnt make it moral.

Seekster:
A man who is starving can justify stealing food from a market. A father can justify killing someone who raped his daughter. A mother can justify aborting a baby that was the result of a rape. All of these things are immoral yet all of them can be justified by the individual committing the act.

Stealing food to save a life, or even just to reduce a person's suffering, is moral. And for what it's worth I think the Jesus I learned about in school would agree.

Seekster:
If all life is sacred then killing Bin Laden was immoral because killing anyone was immoral though killing Bin Laden was considered justified by the people of the United States (and hopefully by most people by-and-large).

For the record, I think most non-Americans found the assassination of Bin Laden quite unsettling, and would've preferred some due process. So no, I don't think it was justified. I don't think it saved any lives. If it had saved lives, then it might have been justified (and moral).

Seekster:
Murder is never morally justified no but i never said it was morally justified, just that it can be justified. The inference being that sometimes society or individuals can justify doing things that are immoral, often times they really shouldnt but that is the world we live in.

Seekster:
We ought not to have killed Bin Laden and in a perfect world we wouldnt feel the urge to because in a perfect world he never would have done the things he did. This is an example of why human morality is flawed, because it has to deny something like "life is sacred" in order to justify it.

Seekster:
I would say in a perfect world all killing would be wrong but of course perfection doesnt work well in an imperfect world. You need imperfect morality in an imperfect world and that is why our society has invented a system of morality that excuses or justifies certain actions that in a perfect world would be immoral.

Perfect worlds cannot exist, so it is nonsense to have a system of morals that assumes a perfect world.

If you have to routinely break your idealistic moral code every day, what is the point of having one? I would rather have a more realistic, consistent moral code which I never have to break, because I am only able to justify those things which I consider moral. At least then I can say I have stuck to my principles.

Seekster:
Justified though in a general sense means an individual or group can come up with some reasoning to do something. It can be anything from justifying calling in sick to work when you arent to something with much more sound reasoning like justifying not buying a car you can't afford and buying a somewhat older model instead.

Seekster:
If you can justify something that should be immoral then you act as if it is not immoral. If that is how you proceed then there are few things which cannot be justified somehow.

Right. Anyone can justify anything, so of what relevance is it to this argument whether something can be justified or not? You have to define your system for deciding what can be justified and what can't, and in my case I simply use the same system I use for deciding what is moral and what isn't, and this system isn't based on mistaken ideas of perfect worlds.

Seekster:
"If you can justify an absolute action, morally or otherwise, then that means the action in question was never an absolute to begin with."

So in other words if I am starving and I can justify stealing food its not immoral to steal it?

Correct.

The experience of a foetus

Seekster:
A little trauma is NOTHING compared to what an baby experiences when being aborted.

Seekster:

I am talking about something that cannot think,feel nor emote in any way.

Then you aren't talking about a fetus (except in maybe the very earliest stages of development) or else you need to clarify what the words "think", "feel", and "emote" mean to you specifically.

The scientific consensus is that a foetus under 20 weeks can no way feel pain or sense anything.

Personal responsibility

Seekster:
At the core of the abortion issue is the issue of personal responsibility. If you have sex thats your choice and you through a behavior your consent to the risks involved in that behavior.

Seekster:
Here is an idea, if you can't afford having a child then DON'T RISK HAVING ONE!

Given that contraception is never 100 percent reliable, are you arguing that people with less than a certain amount of money should not have sex?

Seekster:
contraceptives are a way to dodge personal responsibility for most people (not all mind you)

Please explain how you think contraceptives are ever a way to dodge responsibility!

When is the cutoff point?

Seekster:
"The only leg you have to stand on is that the abortion of an embryo/foetus is denying the potential of human life."

Thats absurd, not having sex is denying the potential for a life. The issue is that once you have a fetus life exists and this life is even more valuable (perhaps due to our own biases as a species) because if allowed to develop naturally that fetus either is or will become a human life. A sperm is not sacred (best we can tell its not alive, its organic sure but its not alive) a fetus is.

"Not having sex is denying the potential for a life." That's the point that was being made. Killing a foetus is like not having sex. A foetus is a potential human life, and a sperm and ovum are a potential human life. You can argue that the fact that a foetus is alive makes a difference, and indeed that argument is the subject of most of the thread.

Seekster:
Furthermore, it is significant to point out that the line between a fetus and a baby is arbitrary (even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade said so...appropriately enough since his opinion was the foundation for that decision instead of the constitution but I digress). At what point does a fetus become a baby and why? A baby is a human being yes?

The line between "foetus" and "baby" is arbitrary because those are just words and words are arbitrary. Like "life".

Seekster:
Also I am torn on the issue of when life begins. Some say conception and I do not agree or disagree with that. I usually go with implantation but I am not certain where I would put it. What I am certain of is that by the time you get to the second trimester you are dealing with a baby and talk of abortion past that point (except in the aforementioned worst case scenarios) is right out.

Seekster:

This is a big part of why I don't consider most fetuses "people".

Careful, you could extend a lot of that to heavily retarded people.

If you mean people in permanent vegetative states with no brain activity, then yes you can extend that to those people and you would be right to do so. Unless you consider a dead body to be a person, too.

Seekster:
If you belief a fetus is a living human being (which I pretty much do or at the very least see a fetus as a life worth of being given a chance to keep living) then abortion is immoral no matter the circumstances.

Seekster:
How can we tell when a fetus begins to experience stimuli?

Now you are asking the right question.

The development of the nerves necessary for transmitting stimulus messages would be a good starting point. Certainly not before 20 weeks.

Seekster:

Around 24 weeks it becomes possible for a fetus to survive outside the mother without a huge medical operation being involved. And that sounds about right for setting a limit.

So the implication is that prior to 24 weeks survival is impossible?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-20-tiny-baby_x.htm

I counted at least 5 tubes connected to that baby. I think that fits the definition of a "huge medical operation".

Seekster:
I am not sure if being sentient is the right measure but its close to it. Basically life that can appreciate itself and is aware of itself and which is able to operate outside of instinct should be considered more sacred.

Seekster:

More importantly though, a newborn infant is sentient; an embryo is not.

Well ok Ill give you the first part but I am fairly certain a new born baby isnt self aware yet.

Seekster:

Sentience in this case meaning simply the capacity to feel.

Ok that just cries out for clarification, I am fairly certain anything with skin can feel. I assume you mean have some kind of emotions outside of instinct?

Sentience is the capacity to experience (or "feel"). The sense of touch is one such method of experience. To feel touch, one needs skin, but skin alone is not sufficient. One also needs a brain and the nerves that connect the skin to the brain.

Sapience is intelligent self-awareness. The two are often confused.

Seekster:
At the absolute least our civilization should ban or heavily restrict the use of abortion after the beginning of the Second Trimester.

The bottom line

Seekster:
Lets here your argument in favor of abortion then, I am curious to see if there is an argument that can be given in favor of abortion that actually stands on its own merits.

Seekster:
I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Life is just a word, generally agreed to mean something that has structure, is self-regulating, processes food, grows, adapts, responds to stimuli and reproduces. Whether or not something is alive should not by itself be a factor in whether it can morally be destroyed.

The factors should be whether it can experience or perceive anything and whether it can feel pain. And a foetus can do neither of those, certainly before 20 weeks and probably before 26 weeks.

If it can't experience, perceive or feel pain, there is no reason not to destroy it in order to improve the existence of people who can experience and perceive (including the foetus' possible future siblings).

There are few "arguments" in favour of abortion, because it's so obviously OK that there are very few obstacles to overcome when arguing for it, besides misguided beliefs about life.

Well I hope this post has made you think. I don't demand that you change your beliefs, but I do hope you will analyse more carefully your reasons for believing them. It feels good to get it all off my chest, anyway. Thanks.

This bill has been rejected by the senate. I think it's time to put this thread to bed.

renegade7:
This bill has been rejected by the senate. I think it's time to put this thread to bed.

Unfortunately you're wrong. The bill forcing ultrasounds onto women who want an abortion, in order to guilt-trip them, was passed on 28 february.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/virginia-senate-passes-revised-ultrasound-bill.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Only change is they removed forcing the vaginal ultrasound because of widespread outrage over this form of state-sanctioned rape.

So the anti-abortion freaks won, considering the governor is also a republica anti-abortion freak, so he won't shoot this down either.

Unsurprisingly, there's only a single physician among the voting senators, and he opposed it, saying the anti-abortion bill was "a tremendous assault on women's health care and a tremendous insult to physicians."

TheGuy(wantstobe):

So everyone's thoughts on this package of bills? It's rather disgusting and the comments made during the debate by the GOP members themselves were horrible too. Though there are a few escapists that will applaud these bills I'm sure I shall not be responding to them.

I think it's unfortunate but to call it "rape" is insulting to every woman who has been violently raped against her will.

Look, an abortion already requires 2 vaginal penetrations. 1 penetration to create the baby and 1 penetration to REMOVE the baby; vacuum method or otherwise, trust me, to do an abortion they ARE sticking something up there.

The trans-vaginal ultrasound is actually much less traumatic than an actual abortion, from every woman I have spoken with that has had both procedures done. It's basically sticking something the size of a penis in the vagina. Not exactly traumatic compared to the actual abortion which involved dilating the cervix and sucking out the fetus. THAT can be painful.

I am pro-choice, for the record. I just think it's absolutely sick to compare a valid medical procedure (transvaginal ultrasound) with "rape" - and it mocks EVERY woman who was ACTUALLY raped against her will. I know women who have been raped; they wouldn't compare the experience to a vaginal ultrasound.

Sigh.

Blablahb:

renegade7:
This bill has been rejected by the senate. I think it's time to put this thread to bed.

Unfortunately you're wrong. The bill forcing ultrasounds onto women who want an abortion, in order to guilt-trip them, was passed on 28 february.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/virginia-senate-passes-revised-ultrasound-bill.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Only change is they removed forcing the vaginal ultrasound because of widespread outrage over this form of state-sanctioned rape.

So the anti-abortion freaks won, considering the governor is also a republica anti-abortion freak, so he won't shoot this down either.

Unsurprisingly, there's only a single physician among the voting senators, and he opposed it, saying the anti-abortion bill was "a tremendous assault on women's health care and a tremendous insult to physicians."

Let me break down that article for you.

Against:
-a tremendous assault on women's health care and a tremendous insult to physicians.

For:
-it is very important that these women are given as much information as possible before they make this difficult decision.
-concerns about requiring vaginal ultrasounds were exaggerated because most clinics perform the procedures before abortions anyway (with no opposition.)

So there's one side who's saying women should actually be educated and be able to make an informed decision, while also saying this is basically standard practice to most clinics anyway, and then we have the other side who is having a cry about "women's rights" and doctor-patient relations.

You should understand that;
a) Women should be encouraged to make an informed decision.
b) This is already standard practice.
c) This legislation is needed, because as I'm sure you're well aware, not all doctors follow guidelines, and some straight out do not care about their patients. Although I have no evidence, I think it's safe to say most people who performed illegal abortions back in the 60's-70's (in clinics with medical equipment) went on to do it legally after Wade vs Roe. The death rate was lower than most people would like to believe.
d) The Pro-Choice side have had 40+ years to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates, but they have failed to do so in any significant number. Therefore, it's time for tougher processes. Statistically, many women who go in for abortions have already had 2+... It's time they took this seriously, because it's not a joke, despite the attitude of some people.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked