South Dakota House oks abortion ban to overture Roe v. Wade in Supreme Court

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I have a 129.99 best buy gift card. It's yours if you can explain to me how every birth is a joyous occasion[/QUOTE]
I don't think he's refering to the occasion being joyous to the mother.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Silly argument. I've never had chemotherapy, yet I believe in its use. I've never been imprisoned, yet I believe in imprisoning criminals. I've never given birth, yet I believe in its practice.

I've never done a lot of things, so nobody else should be able to either?[/QUOTE]

Chemotherapy is a process to hopefully erradicate cancer, it is inherently good. Supporting it even if you aren't a recepient is understandable because society benefits from it.

Supporting criminal punishment is an institution to help defend society against criminals who break the law, it is inherently good. Supporting it even if you aren't a criminal is understandable because society benefits from it.

Birth keeps our species alive and is a wonderful event, it is inherently good. Supporting it even if you don't give birth is understandable because society benefits from it.

Abortion is the practice of preventing life, it is inherently wrong in 99% of the cases (I do consider that there is one exception) Supporting it despite the fact that you would never want it done to you is hypocritical as far as I'm concerned.

[quote name='Msut77']I now declare that since you never went through it either you no have longer the right to have an opinion on the subject.[/QUOTE]

Uhh... Neither have you... :roll:

[quote name='capitalist_mao']As opposed to what's best for a woman? A woman who has to carry and give birth to a child that was unlawfully put into her is mentally devastating. It's also financially devastating. It can ruin someone's life. So, what you are deciding here is that a fetus is more important than a woman who was already born. Who care's if the woman's life is destroyed, if she's depressed, if she's ruined financially? So long as the baby is born, right?[/QUOTE]

Yes, unless the woman's life is at stake she has absolutely no right to decide the life of another indivdual simply because she doesn't feel like dealing with the kid. I refuse to believe as ya'll do that someone should have absolute life and death power over another individual. I wouldn't want to be in the position, and I cannot believe you would support something like that.

Statistically a woman is more likely to be more mentally and physically healthy if she doesn't get an abortion.

[quote name='mykevermen']So we can be square on this: you demand the vs forum start adhering to a higher standard of factual discussion, except when you don't want to adhere to a higher standard of factual discussion?[/quote]

I don't demand anything of any forum. I would like to see liberals who are trying to lambaste the GOP to come up with something a little more substansive than "OHH KEN MAILMAN IS SO GAY SO VERY GAY!! I H8 HOMOS!!111"

How clear do I have to make it? You wanted my opinion on a question you asked me. Are you following me so far? Because you wanted my opinion I gave you a subjective answer. Still following me? You cannot turn around and say you wanted an objective, factual answer about a question that called for a subjective, opinionated answer.

What you ask for in your posts is highly contrary to what you ask others to do. Your reason is nothing more than an uninformed blanket opinion that overgeneralizes the entire reproductive system and all its contingencies.
Click to expand...

What you gloss over out of ignorance or spite is amazing to me seeing as how you don't even know me. I don't ask for anything out of any posts, but I do expect a minimal level of competence out of my opponents. Your ad hominem attacks are lame at best, and I will continue to chastise you for lacking any real intellect until you cease to address me like I was born yesterday. I know attacking me personally is about all you can resort to, I saw it in the other thread yesterday. If you don't mind I would prefer you PM me if you wish to continue to use attacks like I'm some "uninformed shitneck" rather than waste everyones time by taking up space in this thread. You have nothing to talk about other than whining about a grudge you hold against me for calling you out when you deserved it.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I don't think he's refering to the occasion being joyous to the mother.[/QUOTE]

What about those born with defects such as Anencephaly (essentially without a brain)? That occurs 1 in every 10,000 live births (the rest are aborted), those born alive live hours, days at the most (excluding a few rare exception reaching a month or so). If the pregnancy is carried to term about half are born stillborn. Here's an example and I would like to know how many think she should be forced to carry this child to term and if, as ace said, it would be a miraculous and joyous occasion to someone who didn't want to do so:

She wanted to honor her son, to celebrate his life, however short. That's why she had refused an abortion, even after doctors told her that her little boy would be born without a skull.


Now he was here, squirming in his blankets, and Danielle Hayworth could not bring herself to hold him.

Her hospital room was packed with relatives cooing at her son's sweet face, telling her to enjoy every minute she had with him.

Danielle turned away from the bassinet. This was all she had dared pray for: a few moments to hug her son close, to memorize his sounds, his smell, how his thin fingers felt clasped around her own. But all she could think about was losing him, and how her heart would break.

She could not bear the waiting. She wept and wished for it to end.
"Is that bad of me?" ........

As she neared the start of her third trimester, in mid-October, decisions pressed in on Danielle.


Stringfield had told her Lee would have a much better chance of living a few hours if born by cesarean section. Vaginal births put a lot of stress on a baby's head; without skulls to protect them, anencephalic infants often do not survive the trauma.

The thought of hurting her son made Danielle cry, but so did the thought of a C-section. The surgery would keep her in the hospital an extra day. Who would watch Dashon and Jonathan? She'd come home sore. What if Jonathan had a seizure? How would she pick him up? "I feel so torn," she said.

Then there was the funeral. She was anxious about how Lee would look in an open casket, but mad at herself for worrying about it; she didn't want to be ashamed of her baby.

A prayer ran constantly through her head: Give me strength.

One morning, overwhelmed with despair, her body aching, Danielle called Schafer. Two hours later she was lying in the clinic's ultrasound room, marveling at Leah's chubby cheeks. Danielle had to smile when she saw Leah's nose -- it looked just like Lee Sr.'s. "Poor thing," she said.

Schafer had noticed in an earlier scan that Lee Jr. had a severe cleft lip. From then on, she talked up his cutest features: his long fingers and pert chin, a fringe of hair above his ears.

"I've been bawling all weekend, but after I saw that sonogram, I just don't feel like crying," Danielle said a few hours later. "Sometimes I wish I wasn't pregnant. But then I look at the pictures of the babies, and I feel thankful."

The next day, she decided she would ask for a C-section. "I want that chance with Lee," she said. "I want every single second that God gives me."



It helped that she felt less alone. She was separated from Lee Sr.; he told her he didn't know how to cope with the pending birth and death.


She and Schafer talked about getting a tiny hat to fit Lee's head, about finding a heart-shaped jewel box to hold his ashes, about buying books to explain the concept of death to Dashon and Jonathan. Schafer found a donor to pay for Lee's memorial stone and arranged for a Choices volunteer to drop off groceries now and then. Every time Danielle came by for an ultrasound, Schafer printed dozens of pictures of the twins. On the best of them, she typed: "Hi, mom!" .......



Danielle smiled, but her mind was on her son. "Is he out yet?" she said. "Is he breathing? I want him!"

Lee Charles Crump Jr. was born a minute after his sister, at 4:19 p.m. -- wiggling, pink, but struggling.

"He's so cute, Danielle," Schafer called as two nurses rubbed him with a blanket.

"Why don't he cry?" Danielle wailed. "Is he breathing?"

"He's trying," Schafer told her. "C'mon, Baby. C'mon."

The nurses pulled a hat over Lee's exposed brain tissue and dressed him hurriedly in the outfit Danielle had picked out, a sweat suit with a soccer ball on the jacket and the letters MVP.

"Sweet boy," Schafer said. "Here he is, Danielle."

Danielle, heavily medicated, could not focus her eyes. She reached out for her son, murmured, "Hey, little man, I love you." Then she sank back, dazed.

Lee was starting to turn blue.

"We have to keep him going until Mom's awake," nurse Deanna Kowalski shouted. She clamped an oxygen mask over Lee's mouth.

"Just give us a half-hour, Baby," Kowalski said. "Just give us a half-hour."

Lee Sr. held the oxygen mask to his son's face as the doctors stitched Danielle. He had flinched when he first saw his baby's mangled head, "but now I'm OK with it," he said. Gently, he stroked Lee's cheek; softly, he murmured, "precious child ... precious child of God."

In the recovery room, Danielle sat up slowly. "Does he look like a monster?" she whispered.

"He doesn't," her physician, Amy Madril, told her. "He's happy as can be in his little oxygen tent."

Danielle opened her arms to receive her son. She rocked the tiny bundle a moment, then pulled back his hat with a groan. "I'm so sorry, Baby. Oh, Sweetie. I'm so sorry."

The room was bright with balloons and flowers; Lee Sr. was handing out pink and blue bubble-gum cigars. Danielle didn't want to touch her son. The mass on his head was awful -- bruised, swollen, worse than the pictures she had been shown in medical texts. Stringfield had told her that anencephalic infants can't feel pain, but it looked like her baby was suffering.

"I'm so sorry, little man," she sobbed. Someone took the baby and put him back in his bassinet. Danielle looked away.



Danielle was afraid to fall in love with her son, but he had such a way about him.


He cooed at everyone who held him, grabbed their fingers and squeezed tight. When Schafer rubbed him under the chin, he made little hums.

Lee Jr. weighed 3 pounds, 13 ounces, with his clothes on; he was all eyes and chin and cheeks. His daddy couldn't stop stroking his face. "Hey, Junior, how're you doing?" he'd ask.

Leah had been taken to neonatal intensive care as a precaution. She did so well that a few hours after the birth, her nurse said she could briefly leave the ward. So Danielle brought the twins together one last time. She nestled them side by side in a bassinet for photos. Then she cradled her babies, one in each arm, and kissed their perfect little ears.

She was quiet as she looked at them, and when she asked to be wheeled back to her room, she told the nurse she wanted to disconnect Lee's oxygen.

"I'm ready," she said.

But the baby adjusted to less oxygen. He slept Tuesday night in his father's arms and in the morning, he opened his eyes. Danielle had to laugh when he started chirping in a rhythmic peep-peep-peep that sounded like a hospital monitor. He mewed and squealed. Lee's cousin Latrina "Teeny" Jones even swore she caught him giggling.

The cleft made it hard for him to latch on to a bottle, but Lee smacked his lips so vigorously that visitors kept exclaiming: "That boy is hungry!"

"Pig," Danielle teased. "Fits right in with my other kids."

To keep their son comfortable, Danielle and Lee Sr. asked a nurse to feed him every two hours, a teaspoon of formula through a thin tube in his nose.

Almost every moment of his life, Lee was in someone's arms.

Danielle's mother, Rhonda Wilson, held the baby for hours. She had been anxious about how she would react, but now that he was here, "I feel really at peace," she said. "It's meant for us to have this time with him."

Lee's great-grandmother held him, and a dozen cousins, aunts and uncles. Even Dashon and Jonathan took turns.

"Hi, baby," Jonathan called. "It's your big brother!" He gave Lee one of his toys: a plastic cell phone.

Lee slept a second night snuggled up to his daddy. But with the morning light on Thursday, his parents could tell he was fading. His skin was cold and the pink was gone from his cheeks; he breathed in ragged gurgles.

Danielle held him naked to her bare chest, whispering to him, smelling his neck. He still had the strength to wrap his hand around her finger.

When she could no longer endure the waiting, Danielle bundled her son in a white satin blanket embroidered with angel wings. Passing him gently to Teeny, she went downstairs to feed her daughter.

When she returned an hour later, Lee was limp. Danielle held him in silence a long while, then looked up: "How do you know?"

Schafer unwrapped the blanket and put her stethoscope to Lee's chest. There was silence as she listened, and then she said, "He's gone."

It was 11:19 a.m., 43 hours to the minute after his birth.
Lee Sr. cradled the still body against his wet cheek. So softly it was almost imperceptible, he began to hum "Amazing Grace."
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/05/MNGONH16921.DTL

Do you think that that is something that should be forced on a woman (not to mention her family)? 95% of these children are aborted, this woman obviously decided against that option. But if abortion was outlawed 1 in every 1,000 children would be born this way. And 95% of those woman would be forced to live through the birth, and death, of their own child, something they would have been spared if they were given a choice. There are other less severe, but still fatal (or likely fatal) birth defects, this is just one of the worst.

Here's another one about a woman who's baby had the same birth defect but she had an abortion.
http://www.ppgi.org/includes/get_involved/kosterfamily.htm


 
[quote name='Msut77']Which is the point shitneck.[/QUOTE]

Well going by your logic you can't say anything cuntknee.

Since I don't agree with it I still can.
 
Statistically a woman is more likely to be more mentally and physically healthy if she doesn't get an abortion.
Click to expand...

Info please. And remember, the situations which women who have abortions often find themselves in (ie. factors contributing to the desire to have an abortion, such as extreme poverty or other reasons hindering the ability to care for the child or cope with the responsibility) are linked with a decrease in physical and mental health.
 
Alanzo, that was a beautiful, bittersweet story of the powerful bond between a mother and her child. I really appreciate you posting it, it really highlights how love cannot be measured in time.

I know your point was that children who doctors predict will have birth defects shouldn't be born because they'll only die, but I must say I couldn't put that much faith into a doctor. I just couldn't bring myself to giving up on my child because a doctor says he'll be different and he might not live very long.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Alanzo, that was a beautiful, bittersweet story of the powerful bond between a mother and her child. I really appreciate you posting it, it really highlights how love cannot be measured in time. [/quote]

So you would be fine with forcing someone to endure that? It was a choice she made, 95% of people don't. They would all be forced to endure the quick birth and death (more often than not death then birth) of their child. No thought would be given to whether the mother is emotionally capable of dealing with that, no thought would be given to any other reasons for or against. You would be forcing the mother of 1 out of every 1,000 births to watch her child die before her eyes, a child who was never aware of being alive.

I know your point was that children who doctors predict will have birth defects shouldn't be born because they'll only die, but I must say I couldn't put that much faith into a doctor. I just couldn't bring myself to giving up on my child because a doctor says he'll be different and he might not live very long.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they shouldn't be born, I'm saying every mother should make the painful decision on her own.

Also, you don't believe a doctor can tell you that you're baby has, essentially, no brain? Do you not believe doctors can tell you the sex of your baby?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Info please. And remember, the situations which women who have abortions often find themselves in (ie. factors contributing to the desire to have an abortion, such as extreme poverty or other reasons hindering the ability to care for the child or cope with the responsibility) are linked with a decrease in physical and mental health.[/QUOTE]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-1-15/36977.html

A recent five-year study released from the University of Oslo shows that the negative psychological effects following abortions last much longer than those who had miscarriages.

. . .

Forty-eight percent of the women who had miscarriages suffered distress at the ten-day period versus 30 percent of those who aborted. However, the ones who had miscarriages dropped to 23 percent after six months and to 2.6 percent after five years.

Of the women who had abortions 26 percent were still suffering grief, guilt, depression, shame and denial at six months. After five years 20 percent were still distressed.


. . .

The Christchurch Health and Development Study tracked 1,265 children born in the 1970s in New Zealand, which included 500 girls. Of them, 205 became pregnant and 90 had abortions. Forty-two percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression at some time in the previous four years—almost double the rate of the other women. The ones who had abortions also experienced twice the anxiety disorders, double the alcohol abuse, triple illegal drug dependency and a higher risk of suicide.

. . .

A 1997 Study in Finland by the STAKES statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, in which researchers pulled death certificates and reproductive health records of women who died within a year of a birth, miscarriage or abortion included 9,192 maternal post-abortion deaths of women aged 15–49 from 1987 to 1994. They found the risk of death within a year by suicide, homicide, accident or natural causes was four times greater in women who had abortions than in other women.
Click to expand...

Three studies done by three very different institutions.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Abortion is the practice of preventing life, it is inherently wrong in 99% of the cases[/QUOTE]
YOu mean morally wrong, right?

[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] Yes, unless the woman's life is at stake she has absolutely no right to decide the life of another indivdual simply because she doesn't feel like dealing with the kid. I refuse to believe as ya'll do that someone should have absolute life and death power over another individual. I wouldn't want to be in the position, and I cannot believe you would support something like that.[/QUOTE]
Since when is a fetus another "individual"? THe thing is attached to the woman until it's born! Only until it's separated from the womb does it become an individual. Until then, they're bound to each other. That being said, the baby is gestating from the nutrients, blood, cells, energy, etc of the mother. The woman should have total and complete control over her body, as well as the things gestating inside of it.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Statistically a woman is more likely to be more mentally and physically healthy if she doesn't get an abortion.[/QUOTE]
Is this an affirming the consequent argument? I can understand that mentally and physically unhealthy people don't want to go through birth. However, I seriously doubt that getting an abortion causes people to become mentally and physically unhealthy. Remember, just because A => B does not mean that B => A.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you would be fine with forcing someone to endure that?[/QUOTE]

Well, that is, after all, the ultimate demarcation of an anti-abortion person.

I've always felt unnecessarily lumped into the "pro-choice" crowd. I would never have an abortion myself, and if we decided, as a family, not to have another child, I'd hope that my wife would be willing to put it up for adoption. I prefer to focus on the side of reducing accidental and unwanted pregnancies, but that's something rarely discussed in the abortion debate.

Most importantly, I don't think I could be 100% supportive of a friend who decided to get one done. I wish I could be, but I don't think I can.

That having been said, I would never impose my beliefs on someone outside of my family. On a message board and in hypotheticals? Certainly. If I had a friend considering it, I'd my best to be supportive and otherwise keep my mouth to myself. Because I won't tell someone they will burn in the fiery pits of hell for terminating a pregnancy, that defaults me into the pro-choice category.

While I'd be thrilled if there were no more abortions ever again, I don't think that is something to be legislatively forced (*especially* when those trying to make those impositions would be equally unlikely to support legislation to help these disproportionately poor children once they are born).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you would be fine with forcing someone to endure that? It was a choice she made, 95% of people don't. They would all be forced to endure the quick birth and death (more often than not death then birth) of their child. No thought would be given to whether the mother is emotionally capable of dealing with that, no thought would be given to any other reasons for or against. You would be forcing the mother of 1 out of every 1,000 births to watch her child die before her eyes, a child who was never aware of being alive.[/quote]

It's an unfortunate disease, but I see a very clear slippery slope with the entire situation. Let me take a stab at a question for a second:

Let's say the doctors don't predict the disease, but once the baby is born they find out. Should the mother still have the ability to kill it? If so, when does that ability cease to be? How long should one person have the ability of life and death of another person in their hands?

It must be a very painful decision to make, and I don't envy any woman in that position. I know you want to defend the woman's feelings, which is a noble cause singularly, but when compared to an individual's right to life there is just no contest as far as I'm concerned.

Also, you don't believe a doctor can tell you that you're baby has, essentially, no brain? Do you not believe doctors can tell you the sex of your baby?
Click to expand...

I'm saying medical miracles happen. Nothing is certain, nothing is impossible. With the wonders of science, who knows? Why err on death instead of life?
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Yeah let's not forget that's not just a life support system, it's a human being feeding it too. If you're going to humanize the baby then how about we also remember there's someone else the baby is connected to.
Let's say the baby was born with one of those brittle bone diseases in which even a slight fall breaks a hip, or a leg, or both, would you really be so eager to admit a baby conceived of incest through then?
Also why SHOULD the mother have to carry the baby to term if she didn't willingly have sex? I don't get what's with you people, it's like as soon as the baby is conceived the woman forfeits all rights to her own body and gives them over to the fetus.
Ace pay attention I said INCEST, not rape though most of the time I would HOPE that that Incest would not be consetual.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you didn't understand a word I said. As much as I feel sorry for any victim of rape or incest, that doesn't make a baby created by such an act any less of a person. Therefore, it's dumb to differentiate between a baby created through rape/incest. It's like you're punishing the baby because a crime was committed that resulted in his or her creation.

And you also just don't want to understand any position contrary to your own about a baby being a separate person from the mother as well. If you did understand that line of reasoning, you wouldn't have typed something idiotic about me wanting a woman to give up control over her own body.

As for a baby being connected to the mother, big deal, even after being born a baby couldn't survive without someone to feed him/her and take care of them. What about in the moments after birth before the umbilical cord is cut? Still not a person? :roll:
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']YOu mean morally wrong, right?[/quote]

That too. :D


Since when is a fetus another "individual"? THe thing is attached to the woman until it's born! Only until it's separated from the womb does it become an individual. Until then, they're bound to each other. That being said, the baby is gestating from the nutrients, blood, cells, energy, etc of the mother. The woman should have total and complete control over her body, as well as the things gestating inside of it.
Click to expand...

Since he has a heartbeat, since he has organs, hair, and muscles. Since he can kick and hiccup.

Like it or not, he's a living thing waiting to be born. Once he is born, he is still just as dependant (if not moreso) on the mother for his health because now he has the real test of fighting off all these external things in a brand new world.

Unless you're prepared to advocate the option for a mother to kill her child until he's fully independent, then I just don't see how you can give them that option.

However, I seriously doubt that getting an abortion causes people to become mentally and physically unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Studies show statistically women who go through abortions are more likely to be mentally and physically unhealthy.
 
Okay, I think we pretty much agree that abortion and unwanted pregnancy both can lead to mental health problems potentially, so I'm going no further on that one.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, it was mentioned since you added the baby killing part. But I think that's the 3rd time I've asked that specific question and I don't think you ever answered it in a scientific way, it's always an emotional appeal. If you have then it's not something I remember.[/QUOTE]

Geez, okay, I'll explain one more time. Once an egg is fertilized and implanted, it begins to grow. Once it begins to grow on its own, that is a different person. There are always stages with every organism where different things are developed, no big deal there. You are arguing some subjective way of determining humanity, such as "when the baby's heart begins to beat" or "when a baby reaches a certain level of brain development." As I just said, once an egg is fertilized and implanted and begins to grow, and if you let things proceed naturally this will grow indisputably into a human being, I don't see any other point to cut things off at that is logical other than from the point when the fertilized egg is implanted and begins to grow.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-1-15/36977.html



Three studies done by three very different institutions.[/QUOTE]

Those who have abortions are more likely to be poor, in abusive relationships, single, engaging in substance abuse, emotionally unstable etc. the incidence rates of those issues, plus many others, are higher in those women who have abortions BEFORE they have the abortion. The article itself even mentions that the first study has been questioned on those grounds. That's also exactly what I mentioned before you posted the article. Also, another issue with the first study, is that abortion is a choice. A woman doesn't necessarily make the right choice for their belief system. Even if the previously mentioned reason for elevated stress are not the reason, the steady level of stress suggest that the women may have an overriding issue with abortion itself and simply made a choice that was contrary to their moral beliefs. The stress may have been a result of the decision and the mental aspect of what occured, not the abortion itself (which would suggest those who had no problem morally with abortion would have similar stress levels).

The second study says
Forty-two percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression at some time in the previous four years—almost double the rate of the other women
Click to expand...


It's not 100% clear but it appears that the study referred to the period before the abortion.

The third study includes an elevated risk of homicide and accident, which would be unrelated to abortion. That seems to go back to my original point of the issues women getting abortions may have going into the procedure.

Since he has a heartbeat, since he has organs, hair, and muscles. Since he can kick and hiccup.
Click to expand...
You realize there's a period of development where it has none of those things, right?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Studies show statistically women who go through abortions are more likely to be mentally and physically unhealthy.[/QUOTE]

What mao said was that you're assuming a causal order here that isn't proven; you're taking a correlation and arranging it to support your belief, when that isn't what the studies you cited show.

Now, find some longitudinal data that shows the freuqency, duration, and strength of depression and anxiety attacks changes prior to pregnancy and after abortion, then we'll start talking.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']It's an unfortunate disease, but I see a very clear slippery slope with the entire situation. Let me take a stab at a question for a second:

Let's say the doctors don't predict the disease, but once the baby is born they find out. Should the mother still have the ability to kill it?[/quote]

Isn't that what is done when you shut of the oxygen? She attempted to do that, it just survived without it longer than expected. I really don't want to go to far on this though, since if we get into euthanasia that will take up considerable space in it's own right.


It must be a very painful decision to make, and I don't envy any woman in that position. I know you want to defend the woman's feelings, which is a noble cause singularly, but when compared to an individual's right to life there is just no contest as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

But a life it will never know? It can't think. It does not have the biological capabilities to accomplish such a task.



I'm saying medical miracles happen. Nothing is certain, nothing is impossible. With the wonders of science, who knows? Why err on death instead of life?
Click to expand...

Science can't grow a brain, and they certainly aren't going to go from being nowhere near growing a brain to being able to do full brain trasnplants within 8 months (since it takes about a month to find out there's a problem). No child has ever survived this. No child like this has ever been conscious, and in fact it's incapable of that. No amount of "miracles" can make someone see without eyes, there's no difference between that example and the condition this baby has.

Honestly there's an answer I'm looking for. Not that you care but that's an answer I find acceptable. But the answer you're giving isn't rational. If you have an ultrasound and there's no skull or brain, and you take it again with the same result, and again, and again, there's not going to be a skull or brain when that baby is born.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What mao said was that you're assuming a causal order here that isn't proven; you're taking a correlation and arranging it to support your belief, when that isn't what the studies you cited show.

Now, find some longitudinal data that shows the freuqency, duration, and strength of depression and anxiety attacks changes prior to pregnancy and after abortion, then we'll start talking.[/QUOTE]

You're saying the unhealthy behavior could be due to other actions? I'd say that would have to be highly coincidental seeing as how all the studies show the same correlation.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']You're saying the unhealthy behavior could be due to other actions? I'd say that would have to be highly coincidental seeing as how all the studies show the same correlation.[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that correlation is not causation. They are related, but you can not identify which comes first based upon nothing more than a correlation. In addition, there was a phrase alonzo highlighted in one of the studies that suggested women were more depressed for years prior to abortion. If that's correct, then you have falsified the causal argument that increased depression/anziety/etc. result from the abortion itself, and create an even stronger argument that you're truly describing a spurious relationship, in which the actual causal elements of the increased problems aren't spelled out in the study.

Alonzo had a post several up which list some of the lifestyle differences associated with class that could also be related to the mental health issues. That's dependent upon two things: are there differences in mental health between socioeconomic classes; and, are women of lower SES more likely to have abortions?

In the end, there is a relationshp between poor mental health and abortions; however, there are two possible questions as a result of that: does having an abortion increase the likelihood of poor mental health, or, does poor mental health increase the likelihood of considering/having an abortion? Your arguments seem to suggest that you've not entertained the latter possibility.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Those who have abortions are more likely to be poor, in abusive relationships, single, engaging in substance abuse, emotionally unstable etc. the incidence rates of those issues, plus many others, are higher in those women who have abortions BEFORE they have the abortion.[/quote]

Alright, let's see it then.

the steady level of stress suggest that the women may have an overriding issue with abortion itself and simply made a choice that was contrary to their moral beliefs. The stress may have been a result of the decision and the mental aspect of what occured, not the abortion itself (which would suggest those who had no problem morally with abortion would have similar stress levels).
Click to expand...

You're right, it is the woman's choice. If they choose abortion knowing their predisposed moral qualms with it, then they're probably going to feel worse about it later, aren't they? It was still their choice to do so though, and their responsibile forr the repercussions.

It's not 100% clear but it appears that the study referred to the period before the abortion.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't:

[quote name='Article']Forty-two percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression at some time in the previous four years—almost double the rate of the other women. The ones who had abortions also experienced twice the anxiety disorders, double the alcohol abuse, triple illegal drug dependency and a higher risk of suicide.[/quote]

The third study includes an elevated risk of homicide and accident, which would be unrelated to abortion. That seems to go back to my original point of the issues women getting abortions may have going into the procedure.
Click to expand...

Seems like a cop-out argument. I think you thought I couldn't produce anything, and now that I can you're backtracking and saying, "Oh, doesn't prove anything because we dont know if people are sad already" I don't buy it. It would have to be awfully coincidental for the same pattern to occur in every study, and for abortion women to always fare far worse than their non-abortion counterparts.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Isn't that what is done when you shut of the oxygen? She attempted to do that, it just survived without it longer than expected. I really don't want to go to far on this though, since if we get into euthanasia that will take up considerable space in it's own right.[/quote]

Exactly my point. It's very difficult to set a point to where a woman should no longer have that important decision over the child.

But a life it will never know? It can't think. It does not have the biological capabilities to accomplish such a task.
Click to expand...

I think all human life deserves at the very least their inalienable rights. When you start making exceptions for certain forms of life instead of just making it mandatory for everyone no matter how weak or insignificant as you might describe them. How about the mentally retarded? Those in a coma? Those suffering from a fatal disease?

Honestly there's an answer I'm looking for. Not that you care but that's an answer I find acceptable. But the answer you're giving isn't rational. If you have an ultrasound and there's no skull or brain, and you take it again with the same result, and again, and again, there's not going to be a skull or brain when that baby is born.
Click to expand...

What if the ultrasound machine is malfunctioning? What if the doctor's abilites are hampered somehow? What if some files get mixed up? To say if a doctor or computer says something it's always 100% certain just seems ridiculous to me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In the end, there is a relationshp between poor mental health and abortions; however, there are two possible questions as a result of that: does having an abortion increase the likelihood of poor mental health, or, does poor mental health increase the likelihood of considering/having an abortion? Your arguments seem to suggest that you've not entertained the latter possibility.[/QUOTE]

But you want me to prove the impossible then. I can't go find each of the women individually and analyze the reasons behing the abortion and figure out if they are due to mental health or other factors. You're just using the argument that we cannot prove anything so studies don't really show anything which I think is unfair.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
No, it didn't:
Forty-two percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression at some time in the previous four years—almost double the rate of the other women. The ones who had abortions also experienced twice the anxiety disorders, double the alcohol abuse, triple illegal drug dependency and a higher risk of suicide.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

It isn't clear if they 4 years is leading into the abortion or after the abortion.



Seems like a cop-out argument. I think you thought I couldn't produce anything, and now that I can you're backtracking and saying, "Oh, doesn't prove anything because we dont know if people are sad already" I don't buy it. It would have to be awfully coincidental for the same pattern to occur in every study, and for abortion women to always fare far worse than their non-abortion counterparts.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Correlation is not the same as causation. And the conditions that lead to certain people getting abortions produce those same effects. I explained that before you made the post, I explained that after you made the post, myke and mao also explained this. Anyone who deals in fields such as sociology, psychology, medical fields etc. would be very familiar with this. Ensuring a study measures what it intends to measure is one of the major problem that arise when conducting a study. A third variable (in this case the factors that lead to abortion) is possibly present in all these studies, and could lead to the same results. I know you can produce studies linking abortion and depression, because women in poverty, abusive relationship, abusing substances etc. are all more likely to be depressed and all more likely to have abortions. The problem is separating the abortion from all the other factors. And, again, homicide and accidents are not the fault of abortion.


I think all human life deserves at the very least their inalienable rights. When you start making exceptions for certain forms of life instead of just making it mandatory for everyone no matter how weak or insignificant as you might describe them. How about the mentally retarded? Those in a coma? Those suffering from a fatal disease?
Click to expand...

Mentally retarded is a ridiculous argument, since they're fully conscious and aware. Those in a coma is a poor argument since they have a past and hopefully a future. Those who don't, but are on life support, we allow the family an option of withdrawing life support when everything appear hopeless. Those suffering from a fatal disease are fully aware and can/should (depending on where they live) make their own decisions.

The child mentioned here was born and will die (sometimes in the opposite order)very soon, and is not capable of having consciousness. The biological structes enabling that are not present.



What if the ultrasound machine is malfunctioning? What if the doctor's abilites are hampered somehow? What if some files get mixed up? To say if a doctor or computer says something it's always 100% certain just seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Do you understand how an ultrasound works? But, for the sake of argument, lets say everyone of your exceptions is relevant and occurs. What if the mothers has multiple doctors and multiple hospitals perform the same tests and get the same results. Then what?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Most importantly, I don't think I could be 100% supportive of a friend who decided to get one done. I wish I could be, but I don't think I can.

That having been said, I would never impose my beliefs on someone outside of my family. On a message board and in hypotheticals? Certainly. If I had a friend considering it, I'd my best to be supportive and otherwise keep my mouth to myself. Because I won't tell someone they will burn in the fiery pits of hell for terminating a pregnancy, that defaults me into the pro-choice category.

While I'd be thrilled if there were no more abortions ever again, I don't think that is something to be legislatively forced (*especially* when those trying to make those impositions would be equally unlikely to support legislation to help these disproportionately poor children once they are born).[/QUOTE]

Your last paragraph is what I've been saying. These assholes wanna have their cake and eat it too.
Also, I don't know how you couldn't myke, all you have to remember is that's their body, they have to live with the consequences, Abortion or not. I would prefer the woman deliver and put the baby up for aboption honestly.
Ace won't be convinced of anything for certain on this issue, you could give him a study from the Christian Science Foundation saying conclusively women don't get severely depressed after abortions and he would still call it horseshit just like him doubting the Ultrasound thing.
Ace you live in a real dream world, I'm sorry. I bet you support the Death Penalty too.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']But you want me to prove the impossible then. I can't go find each of the women individually and analyze the reasons behing the abortion and figure out if they are due to mental health or other factors. You're just using the argument that we cannot prove anything so studies don't really show anything which I think is unfair.[/QUOTE]

It's not unfair, and I'm not saying the studies don't show *anything.* I'm saying that what they don't show is *causation.* The only thing you can clearly glean that provides causal order is the increased rates of suicide, because, obviously, one cannot commit suicide and later have an abortion. In that case, the temporal ordering is clear.

However, making that argument would also probably falsely suggest that the abortion led to the suicide; since we cannot state, with any certainty whatsoever, that depression and anxiety precede or follow abortion, then suggesting that abortions lead to higher suicide rates ignores the previous mental health of those seeking abortions (which we aren't certain about).

I'm not asking you to prove the impossible, but I am saying there are several interpretations of the data you presented, and as a result, you cannot say that anything causes anything here. You can say that there is a relationship, but anything more than that? You're just putting words in the researchers' mouths.
 
ill read all of this in the morning, my head is killing me but i'll leave on this note

abortion should have been made illegal when the idea first arose. the ONLY thing i would agree with is the morning after pill, and that only on rape victims.
 
[quote name='ScottieBiscottie']ill read all of this in the morning, my head is killing me but i'll leave on this note

abortion should have been made illegal when the idea first arose. the ONLY thing i would agree with is the morning after pill, and that only on rape victims.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you're really out of your element here. If I were you, I'd stay at the shallow end of the pool for a while longer and watch the adults play.
 
Hoo boy, I'm not going to read all of that, but I did skim it ;) Since I did so, I'll make a few comments just for the heck of it.

First, and this is probably the most important thing, No one actively WANTS abortions. That's right. Even the pro-choice folks would prefer that there would never be reason for abortion. No one believes that abortion is a wonderful thing.

Second-most important point: Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. There are approximately 46 million abortions performed worldwide every year. Out of those, approximately 20 million are performed illegally. Making abortion illegal only makes the procedure more unsafe for the mother. The fetus will still die, and the mother may as well, or at the very least risk serious medical complications. Abortion becomes a "head in the sand" issue for society then, and nothing is solved.

As for the rape/incest victim issue, imagine living your life knowing that a constant living reminder of a horrible crime is always there. Imagine keeping the child and having to look at the face of the person who violated you. I noticed the argument that the child should not be punished for the father's crime. Why should the mother be punished with 9 months of a rapist's seed growing inside her? Why should she be punished with the pain of giving birth to something she never wanted and would always remind her of her rape?

On the subject of "late-term" or "partial-birth" (take your pick, I refuse to play semantic games) abortions, I point you to my first statement. Nobody wants them. They should be allowed, however, in the instance of the mother's life being in jeopardy. We'd all prefer that they never occur, but there are times when, from a medical standpoint, it's the only way to save the mother. To my knowledge, the only time they are currently allowed (if I remember the provisions properly) is in the instance of the mother's health being in danger.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Birth keeps our species alive and is a wonderful event, it is inherently good. Supporting it even if you don't give birth is understandable because society benefits from it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how many more human beings do you think we need to "keep our species alive?" I wasn't aware that we have a population shortage. Not trying to be an ass, I just found your comment odd.
But while I'm addressing you, I do have a serious question for you, Ace. Given your username, do you support war? If so, you inherently justify and support the killing of thousands of adult humans. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but I am curious as to your stance on war.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']But while I'm addressing you, I do have a serious question for you, Ace. Given your username, do you support war? If so, you inherently justify and support the killing of thousands of adult humans. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but I am curious as to your stance on war.[/QUOTE]
You may also want to note his Avatar is from Mafia, which is a glorification of gang activity, violence, drinking/bootlegging, stealing, etc.
 
[quote name='kakomu']YOu mean morally wrong, right?[/QUOTE]

I think he meant the word inherently, even though he doesnt know what it means.

That along with miraculous are his words-to-throw-around of the week.
 
[quote name='Rep. Burt Elliott']But I sure as H.E. double hockey sticks...[/QUOTE]

I thought this particular phraseology went out with Rose Nylund from the Golden Girls. :roll:

I don't think I could take seriously any elected representative who used this in public.
 
Speaking abortion...did anyone catch Lynn Swan on ABC News this week with George Stephanopolous? The guy is running for Gov. of PA and he thought that the Supreme Court overturning Roe. vs. Wade would outlaw abortions. It was pretty embarassing.
 
[quote name='ScottieBiscottie']ill read all of this in the morning, my head is killing me but i'll leave on this note

abortion should have been made illegal when the idea first arose. the ONLY thing i would agree with is the morning after pill, and that only on rape victims.[/QUOTE]

Why only on rape victims? What the morning-after pill does is prevent pregnancy, not end it. It prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted and beginning to grow. There are plenty of fertilized eggs that aren't implanted, and only a few think they are people.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']First, and this is probably the most important thing, No one actively WANTS abortions. That's right. Even the pro-choice folks would prefer that there would never be reason for abortion. No one believes that abortion is a wonderful thing.[/quote]

If you think abortion is simply removing a part of the mother because she chooses to remove that part of her, why is this the case? It should be no different, then, to removing the appendix or donating a kidney. The fact is that most people who support abortion being legal still have a deep-down feeling that there IS something wrong with it, and rationalize away the fact that what's wrong with it is you are killing an innocent child.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Second-most important point: Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. There are approximately 46 million abortions performed worldwide every year. Out of those, approximately 20 million are performed illegally. Making abortion illegal only makes the procedure more unsafe for the mother. The fetus will still die, and the mother may as well, or at the very least risk serious medical complications. Abortion becomes a "head in the sand" issue for society then, and nothing is solved.[/quote]

Of course it won't stop all abortions, but it will reduce the number. I hope you would at least accept that common sense.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']As for the rape/incest victim issue, imagine living your life knowing that a constant living reminder of a horrible crime is always there. Imagine keeping the child and having to look at the face of the person who violated you. I noticed the argument that the child should not be punished for the father's crime. Why should the mother be punished with 9 months of a rapist's seed growing inside her? Why should she be punished with the pain of giving birth to something she never wanted and would always remind her of her rape?[/quote]

Explain to me why a baby should be killed because an adult raped another adult. When you've come up with an acceptable argument for that, then you'll convince me that abortion is the answer for rape victims.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']On the subject of "late-term" or "partial-birth" (take your pick, I refuse to play semantic games) abortions, I point you to my first statement. Nobody wants them. They should be allowed, however, in the instance of the mother's life being in jeopardy. We'd all prefer that they never occur, but there are times when, from a medical standpoint, it's the only way to save the mother. To my knowledge, the only time they are currently allowed (if I remember the provisions properly) is in the instance of the mother's health being in danger.[/QUOTE]

I think most people realize that there are health complications from pregnancy that could result in life-threatening problems for the mother. At least I realize that. Therefore, in that case the mother would have to make the decision, because no one else involved (obviously not the baby) could make a decision as to who should be sacrificed. That is the only way I feel abortion is acceptable, if one life must be sacrificed for another. However, that is a miniscule portion of abortions performed each year.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Speaking abortion...did anyone catch Lynn Swan on ABC News this week with George Stephanopolous? The guy is running for Gov. of PA and he thought that the Supreme Court overturning Roe. vs. Wade would outlaw abortions. It was pretty embarassing.[/QUOTE]

Agreed that it is embarassing, but I would note that this is a common misperception (read this whole thread, for example).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']





Explain to me why a baby should be killed because an adult raped another adult. When you've come up with an acceptable argument for that, then you'll convince me that abortion is the answer for rape victims.

[/QUOTE]

Explain to me why a rapist should be allowed to keep his life and/or his balls when he rapes a woman.
 
Explain to me why a woman should have to give birth to a rapists child just to make some worthless wankers feel better.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Explain to me why a rapist should be allowed to keep his life and/or his balls when he rapes a woman.[/QUOTE]

Because our justice system is not based on a philosophy of retribution, but rather preventing future offense (both for the individual and society at large), coupled with drawing a line at cruel and unusual punishment. That' why.

You can't go back to Impreium Romanum, much as you might like to.
 
To quote George Carlin: "Doesn't it strike you as mildly ironic that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because our justice system is not based on a philosophy of retribution, but rather preventing future offense (both for the individual and society at large), coupled with drawing a line at cruel and unusual punishment. That' why.

You can't go back to Impreium Romanum, much as you might like to.[/QUOTE]
Hey if they are able to make it so aboriton is illegal then they should be able to make castartion legal.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not asking you to prove the impossible, but I am saying there are several interpretations of the data you presented, and as a result, you cannot say that anything causes anything here. You can say that there is a relationship, but anything more than that? You're just putting words in the researchers' mouths.[/QUOTE]

My God, I don't believe it but you're the only rational person in this thread. How am I supposed to debate people who actually post statements like these:

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']But while I'm addressing you, I do have a serious question for you, Ace. Given your username, do you support war?[/QUOTE]

My username? I mean, are you even thinking? Yes, I chose this username because I embrace war and I wish we were all killing each other all the time.
(That's sarcasm by the way, I better tell you ahead of time since you actually might consider the fact that my username my actually be a window into my sociopathic intent.)

[quote name='kakomu']You may also want to note his Avatar is from Mafia, which is a glorification of gang activity, violence, drinking/bootlegging, stealing, etc.[/QUOTE]

Why are you even on this forum if you can't distingush video games from reality? Or should we all only be allowed to play "The Bible Game" under your watch?

How can I take these people seriously, mykevermin? They think my avatar, a fucking video game poster shot, and my screenname, a fucking made up handle, are statements I make in supporting unwarranted crime and death. Maybe you can talk some sense into them or something, because I just don't think I can even respond to such ridiculous trite.

To respond to your statement though, I am saying there is a relationship between the fact the women who have abortions are statistically more likely to have serious mental health problems. It's plain to see, and since the women are the only ones with the choice in the matter, I don't see how the problems could be attributed to other factors within the context of the study. I understand that there are and always will be other factors to influence depression/happiness, but wouldn't you agree that the woman who didn't have abortions would have their share as well? If abortion isn't the factor, how come the women who didn't have one aren't equal to those that did? You can blame it on traditionally worse conditions for women who generally choose abortions, but you have no way of proving that those women indeed do fit that criteria within the context of these studies.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Agreed that it is embarassing, but I would note that this is a common misperception (read this whole thread, for example).[/QUOTE]

That's why I thought of it.
 
To respond to your statement though, I am saying there is a relationship between the fact the women who have abortions are statistically more likely to have serious mental health problems. It's plain to see, and since the women are the only ones with the choice in the matter, I don't see how the problems could be attributed to other factors within the context of the study. I understand that there are and always will be other factors to influence depression/happiness, but wouldn't you agree that the woman who didn't have abortions would have their share as well? If abortion isn't the factor, how come the women who didn't have one aren't equal to those that did? You can blame it on traditionally worse conditions for women who generally choose abortions, but you have no way of proving that those women indeed do fit that criteria within the context of these studies.
Click to expand...

Women who are depressed, poor, substance abusers, abused etc. are more likely to have abortions. Since abortion won't cure any past problems they are more likely to continue having those problems after abortion. If a condition increases the likelihood of having an abortion, then those who don't have an abortion are less likely to have that condition.

Those studies simply show a correlation, that's all. No one is arguing that, in fact everyone is arguing on exists.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
My username? I mean, are you even thinking? Yes, I chose this username because I embrace war and I wish we were all killing each other all the time.
(That's sarcasm by the way, I better tell you ahead of time since you actually might consider the fact that my username my actually be a window into my sociopathic intent.)
[/QUOTE]

When did I imply you being sociopathic? Sounds like someones trying to cover up (look, sarcasm). It simply seemed that by including "war" in your username, you felt nothing objectionable about it. You could have simply said, "No, I do not support war, I chose this username because..." Instead you resort to attacking me, while at the same time ignoring the sizable majority of my post, which you would have served your position better by responding to.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Explain to me why a rapist should be allowed to keep his life and/or his balls when he rapes a woman.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in the death penalty, so that precludes taking a life. Balls, on the other hand...although that's a pretty severe punishment if the verdict was a mistake, and something that can't be remedied. No, I think "dismembering" would fall under cruel punishment. A lengthy jail term and working decades to make reparations should suffice.
 
[quote name='Zing']I can't help but think debates like this would not exist if religion wasn't involved.[/QUOTE]

Undeniably religion (or lack thereof) plays a part in this debate, but it's certainly not the only factor. For example, my position on the issue has nothing at all to do with religion.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Those studies simply show a correlation, that's all.[/QUOTE]

Good, then we agree of the correlation.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']You could have simply said, "No, I do not support war, I chose this username because..." Instead you resort to attacking me, while at the same time ignoring the sizable majority of my post, which you would have served your position better by responding to.[/QUOTE]

I shouldn't have to say it all. Let's at least be honest with each other, that was a ridiculous question any way you slice it. Even if I didn't take offense to the it, I take offense to the notion that you think I would support war. No human being with even a shread of compassion supports war, it's a vile and horrific institution of needless sacrifice because diplomacy utterly failed. That said, is war a necessary evil? Well as Emiliano Zapata once said, Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas. (I looked the original Spainish phrase up on Wikipedia, but it means it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top