Abortion

[palerider]

What do you think the outcome of banning abortion would be?

Exactly the same result as has been the case when we have deemed other behaviors illegal. The majority of abortions will cease as the majority of people are law abiding.

A profit motive will develop for pharmaceutical companies to develop a contraceptive that is orders of magnatude more effective and reliable than anything available today.

Initially, people who have been waiting on lists for years to adopt infants will find that they are moving up on the lists towards getting a child at a rate they didn't dream possible.

People (men and women) will consider the consequences of their actions a bit more carefully since paternity law will toughen up and enforcement of it will undoubtedly become more strict. Modern DNA testing will make men as responsible for their offspring as women and politicians will be pressured by women to hold men's feet to the fire so to speak with regard to accepting their responsibility.

Some people will continue to break the law as is the case with every law on the books and those people should be punished in accordance with the law.

 

[Coyote]

Do some research.

Just for future reference, in case the subject comes up on another topic, are you saying that you favor taking preemptive action against others if a small statistical threat exists? Or are you separating out this particular group to take preemptive action against.

No, I am not saying that. I am being very specific - and yes, I am targeting a specific group of humans: those that use another human's body against their will.

Like I said, everyone who has set out to do harm to a particular group has had their reasons for separating their particular target from the herd so that they could be killed without consequence. Your "host" argument is just your particular way of separating them from the herd.

No it's not. It totally changes the situation from one where only one human's rights are involved to one where two human's rights are involved in a way unlike that of any other group. Can you name any other group of humans who's existance depends upon using the body of another - even against that other's will, even if mortality might insue?

Review the hirearchy of our rights and apply them equally to all human beings and see if if you are able to make a logical case against the unborn.

The heirarchy of rights does not take into account a situation where one person's rights involve taking another person's body and possibly life for their own. Where - in our laws, does one have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will?

So. If I place you in a position where you are not wanted and not welcome and manage to do it while comitting a crime, have I effectively erased your right to live? Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments Coyote.

If I am inhabiting and using another beings body for my survival - two sets of rights come up. Is my right to live erased? No. But it is secondary to the other beings right to her body and life. No matter what you say - pregnacy and child birth involve some risk of mortality and - looking at the CDC info, it is higher then I had thought. No one has the right to own another person's body nor do they have the right to make choices for that body that could result in death against that person's will.

Like I said, this is just the reason you are giving to separate this particular group from the herd in order to justify killing them.

Like you are justifying killing the mother should she die in childbirth for a pregancy she had forced on her?

And using is what a parasite does, the unborn is not using its mother's body. They are in a partnership since entire portions of her biology are devoted expressly for this purpose.

Symbiosis then? Except - there are times when the unborn robs the mother of so much (when resources are scarce) - she dies. Or vice versa - the embryo dies. Speaking totally dispassionately - there is a parasitic element to it.

The definition of parasite is: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Now an embryo is of the same organism so it is not a parasite - but it contributes nothing to the survival of it's host particularly if it is unwanted.

Spoken like a true utopiest. Do you also argue that we should first strike all laws with regard to murder and manslaugher off the books and set about making all violence un-necessary? After all, making the killing of your wife or neighbor, or complete strangers illegal has never stopped it so why bother writing law that protects your right to live in the first place?

If you can't apply your argument equally to all human beings Coyote, it isn't valid.

Refer to my argument above - no matter how you twist it - two sets of rights apply here. None your examples above come anywhere close to describing the unique relationship between these two categories of people - a relationship that does not apply to any other category of human - not one.

No one has the right to own another person's body nor do they have the right to make choices for that body that could result in death against that person's will.

And you avoid answering my question (I believe the term you use is "shuck and jive"): Look at a pregnancy where, at delivery only one may live: the mother or the baby. You can't argue self defense - because both entities can use the same argument. How do you choose and why?

 

[Coyote]

Exactly the same result as has been the case when we have deemed other behaviors illegal. The majority of abortions will cease as the majority of people are law abiding.

It will be largely ineffective and unenforcable - like prohibition. Abortion has been illegal before - it just went underground and became dangerous. Rich people will get their safe abortions and poor people will likely lose their lives. Look at what happens in countries where it is illegal now.

A profit motive will develop for pharmaceutical companies to develop a contraceptive that is orders of magnatude more effective and reliable than anything available today.

Not likely - the pill is very effective and safe now that it is a lower dose. I don't know that there wil be much of a profit motive. Effectiveness and reliability is only as good as the person using them.

Initially, people who have been waiting on lists for years to adopt infants will find that they are moving up on the lists towards getting a child at a rate they didn't dream possible.

The waiting list is for healthy white infants - not biracial, not crack babies, not any sort of child with a defect. Those are still stuck in foster homes.

And who will pay the $10,000 plus it costs to bear a child?

People (men and women) will consider the consequences of their actions a bit more carefully since paternity law will toughen up and enforcement of it will undoubtedly become more strict. Modern DNA testing will make men as responsible for their offspring as women and politicians will be pressured by women to hold men's feet to the fire so to speak with regard to accepting their responsibility.

Now who's a utopian? They didn't consider consequences BEFORE, what makes you think they will now? And if the man has no income or is a neer-do-well or is in jail - exactly how will you get support? What if the father is a wifebeater, rapist, criminal, alcohalic etc.?

Some people will continue to break the law as is the case with every law on the books and those people should be punished in accordance with the law.

How about making abortion unnecessary?

 

[palerider]

No, I am not saying that. I am being very specific - and yes, I am targeting a specific group of humans: those that use another human's body against their will.

How did they get in the position they are in? And don't go for the fraction of 1 percent that are due to rape or incest, How do 98% of them (unborns) get into the position they are in and are any of them where they are, and in the delicate position they are in by choice or by any action that could be construed as their own?

And once again, review the hirearchy of our rights. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

No it's not. It totally changes the situation from one where only one human's rights are involved to one where two human's rights are involved in a way unlike that of any other group. Can you name any other group of humans who's existance depends upon using the body of another - even against that other's will, even if mortality might insue?

Of course it is. You wish for women to continue being allowed to kill them for any or no reason and to do so, you must separate them by some means from the rest of humanity. Dependence is the way you separate them. And tell me, is dependence a valid reason to kill?

The heirarchy of rights does not take into account a situation where one person's rights involve taking another person's body and possibly life for their own. Where - in our laws, does one have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will?

That is why it is a hirearchy. If it were flexible it would be easy to deny anyone their rights.

Where in our law does one have the right to put another in a position of complete dependence and then withdraw support? Can I invite you out on my boat, take you 50 miles offshore and then decide that I no longer want you there and toss you overboard or do I have to let you finish the ride so long as you are not putting my life in danger and then send you on your way.

Suppose I don't know that you have stowed away on my boat until we are 50 miles offshore. Again, I can't simply call you a trespasser and throw you overboard, I have to bring you back to safety and then let the law deal with you.

If I am inhabiting and using another beings body for my survival - two sets of rights come up. Is my right to live erased? No. But it is secondary to the other beings right to her body and life. No matter what you say - pregnacy and child birth involve some risk of mortality and - looking at the CDC info, it is higher then I had thought. No one has the right to own another person's body nor do they have the right to make choices for that body that could result in death against that person's will.

And yet, you give women permission to do exactly that. You give them permission to "own" their child and the right to make the choice to kill it for any or no reason.

Like you are justifying killing the mother should she die in childbirth for a pregancy she had forced on her?

If the mother's life or long term health is in danger, modern medicine can identify the problem before it becomes critical. And in 99% of instances, is pregnancy "really" being forced upon her or is pregnancy a consequence of actions that she made a conscious decision to engage in?

Symbiosis then? Except - there are times when the unborn robs the mother of so much (when resources are scarce) - she dies. Or vice versa - the embryo dies. Speaking totally dispassionately - there is a parasitic element to it.

We aren't talking about the 3rd world here, our laws don't apply there. We are talking about the good old USA where the primary health problem of the poor is obesity and the complications that are associated with it.

T

he definition of parasite is: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

You clearly haven't checked to see what constitutes a parasite even though I told you clearly that unborns were not parasites.

First and foremost, a parasite is, by definition, organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species. A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized.

A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not, except in very rare cases, cause harm to the mother.

A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved. A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue. When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

Refer to my argument above - no matter how you twist it - two sets of rights apply here. None your examples above come anywhere close to describing the unique relationship between these two categories of people - a relationship that does not apply to any other category of human - not one.

Two sets of rights always apply when there is a dispute between two of us. Refer to the hirearchy of our rights. The right to live comes before all others for a reason.

No one has the right to own another person's body nor do they have the right to make choices for that body that could result in death against that person's will.

Are you arguing that women who have abortions don't have the right to make choices that result in the death of their unborn children?

And you avoid answering my question (I believe the term you use is "shuck and jive"): Look at a pregnancy where, at delivery only one may live: the mother or the baby. You can't argue self defense - because both entities can use the same argument. How do you choose and why?

I asked for you to describe such cases in the 21st century. And make sure that the case is such that no one had any idea there was a problem until the woman was in the stirups. Such surprises simply don't happen any more and if the pregnancy has gone on so long that it is no longer possible to abort, then the child can safely be delivered by cecerian. And no, a scar is not a valid reason to kill.

 

[Coyote]

How did they get in the position they are in? And don't go for the fraction of 1 percent that are due to rape or incest, How do 98% of them (unborns) get into the position they are in and are any of them where they are, and in the delicate position they are in by choice or by any action that could be construed as their own?

It's irrelevant how they got into the position they are in or whether only a small number of them are the result of rape - you make no exception for rape.

And once again, review the hirearchy of our rights. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Right - and the mother to be has the right to live. Childbirth carries the risk of mortality. Should she be forced to accept that risk against her will? Are there any other situations where another human being is forced into that position or the position of having their body used by another human being against their will?

Of course it is. You wish for women to continue being allowed to kill them for any or no reason and to do so, you must separate them by some means from the rest of humanity. Dependence is the way you separate them. And tell me, is dependence a valid reason to kill?

Can you give me an example of any other group of humans that is allowed to use another humans body against that human's will, even if it is detrimental or fatal to that human?

Where in our law does one have the right to put another in a position of complete dependence and then withdraw support? Can I invite you out on my boat, take you 50 miles offshore and then decide that I no longer want you there and toss you overboard or do I have to let you finish the ride so long as you are not putting my life in danger and then send you on your way.

How is the rape victim at fault for "putting another in a position of complete dependence"? She didn't do it. Why should she be forced to bear the consequences and the risk of death involved?

Suppose I don't know that you have stowed away on my boat until we are 50 miles offshore. Again, I can't simply call you a trespasser and throw you overboard, I have to bring you back to safety and then let the law deal with you.

Good analogy. Here's another one.

Supppose you are on your boat and you find a stowaway. The stowaway starts attacking you. It tries to throw you overboard. Maybe you are stronger then it maybe not. Maybe you can fend it off long enough to reach port and help. Maybe you can't. Maybe the only thing you can do is try to throw it overboard before it wrecks the boat.

And yet, you give women permission to do exactly that. You give them permission to "own" their child and the right to make the choice to kill it for any or no reason.

It's a complicated system of rights - two people have substantial rights - assuming I accept the notion that a blastocyst is a "person" but for the sake of this particular argument, I will. Who has primary rights over your body and, by extension - your life?

If the mother's life or long term health is in danger, modern medicine can identify the problem before it becomes critical. And in 99% of instances, is pregnancy "really" being forced upon her or is pregnancy a consequence of actions that she made a conscious decision to engage in?

You make no acceptions for rape.

Look at CDC's statistics, it is a significant enough risk that a person who has had pregancy forced upon her unwillingly should not have to take that risk if she doesn't want to.

Who owns your body?

We aren't talking about the 3rd world here, our laws don't apply there. We are talking about the good old USA where the primary health problem of the poor is obesity and the complications that are associated with it.

The statistics I gave were from the good old USA.

You clearly haven't checked to see what constitutes a parasite even though I told you clearly that unborns were not parasites.

Yes, I did - I already clarified that it isn't really a parasite, but that there were some similarities.

Are you arguing that women who have abortions don't have the right to make choices that result in the death of their unborn children?

I am arguing that there are two sets of rights here - which is more important? The born person or the unborn human?

I asked for you to describe such cases in the 21st century. And make sure that the case is such that no one had any idea there was a problem until the woman was in the stirups. Such surprises simply don't happen any more and if the pregnancy has gone on so long that it is no longer possible to abort, then the child can safely be delivered by cecerian. And no, a scar is not a valid reason to kill.

I agree - a scar is no reason. I'm not arguing trivialites. Anyway - you are dodging the question.

 

[palerider]

It will be largely ineffective and unenforcable - like prohibition. Abortion has been illegal before - it just went underground and became dangerous. Rich people will get their safe abortions and poor people will likely lose their lives. Look at what happens in countries where it is illegal now.

Actually prohibition worked out quite well as far as cutting down the consumption of alcohol goes. The majority of people who consumed alcohol prior to prohibition did not consume alcohol during prohibition.

Not likely - the pill is very effective and safe now that it is a lower dose. I don't know that there wil be much of a profit motive. Effectiveness and reliability is only as good as the person using them.

I didn't say pill did I? I said a more effective contraceptive than we have now. Are you arguing that there is no room for improvement?

The waiting list is for healthy white infants - not biracial, not crack babies, not any sort of child with a defect. Those are still stuck in foster homes.

Are you trying to make the argument that most of, or even a large percentage of the children who are aborted are crack babies, or deformed?

And who will pay the $10,000 plus it costs to bear a child?

It would be one of the few uses of my tax money that I woud actually agree with. Also, you seem to be assuming that the rate of unwanted pregnancy will remain flat when abortion is no longer a viable option. Upon what do you base such an assumption?

Now who's a utopian? They didn't consider consequences BEFORE, what makes you think they will now? And if the man has no income or is a neer-do-well or is in jail - exactly how will you get support? What if the father is a wifebeater, rapist, criminal, alcohalic etc.?

You don't think that people consider the consequences of their actions if they actually have to deal with those consequences?

How about making abortion unnecessary?

That is what I have been hearing since 1972. What is your solution?

 

[top gun]

I think we should all get real here...

Abortion is legal. Legal abortion is overwhelmingly supported and we live in a democracy where "overwhelmingly supported" means something. The only... and I mean only chance to end legal abortions would be for Republican Presidents to stack the high court with such adamant pro-lifers who had no respect at all for precedent that they would throw out Roe v. Wade.

And that my friends would last only a matter of months to possibly a year as the Congress under EXTREME outcry would legislate abortions legality. And yes they would have the support to override a veto.

That's how much the American people as a whole don't want abortion to be a back alley medical butcher job as it was in America once long ago.

 

[palerider]

It's irrelevant how they got into the position they are in or whether only a small number of them are the result of rape - you make no exception for rape.

No. I don't make an acception for rape. I fall back on the hirearchy of rights and the fact that you, nor any other pro choicer can make an argument that applies equally to all of us. Without fail, you have to single out a particular group and claim separate rules for "them".

Right - and the mother to be has the right to live. Childbirth carries the risk of mortality. Should she be forced to accept that risk against her will? Are there any other situations where another human being is forced into that position or the position of having their body used by another human being against their will?

Right. I took a minute to research that and the highest number I could find in the US was 12.5 per 100,000 from the WHO for 1998 and the American Journal for Obstetrics and Gynecology says 7.5 per 100,000 in 2001. Further, they say that that 7.5 number is exacerbated by the fact that cecaerians have increased by 25% since 1978 and that the rate of maternal mortality is increased by a factor of 4 when a cecaerian is opted for over natural vaginal delivery.

Spin it however you like, but even 12 per 100,000 is a negligeble risk.

Can you give me an example of any other group of humans that is allowed to use another humans body against that human's will, even if it is detrimental or fatal to that human?

Not necessary. Every single one of us, you included "used" another human being's body. In order for your argument to carry any weight at all, you are going to have to point out a group that hasn't used someone elses body.

How is the rape victim at fault for "putting another in a position of complete dependence"? She didn't do it. Why should she be forced to bear the consequences and the risk of death involved?

Fault isn't the issue when you look at the hirearchy of rights. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Supppose you are on your boat and you find a stowaway. The stowaway starts attacking you. It tries to throw you overboard. Maybe you are stronger then it maybe not. Maybe you can fend it off long enough to reach port and help. Maybe you can't. Maybe the only thing you can do is try to throw it overboard before it wrecks the boat.

As I have stated repeatedly, if the mother's life or long term health are in genuine danger, she has the right to defend herself.

It's a complicated system of rights - two people have substantial rights - assuming I accept the notion that a blastocyst is a "person" but for the sake of this particular argument, I will. Who has primary rights over your body and, by extension - your life?

No. It is a very simple system. All rights are secondary to the right to live. People with unjust motives need to create the illusion of complication in order to see their agenda to fruition.

So long as my life isn't being threatened (and a percentage of 0.00012 doesn't constitute a real threat) the unborn's right to live outweighs my right to not be inconvenienced.

Look at CDC's statistics, it is a significant enough risk that a person who has had pregancy forced upon her unwillingly should not have to take that risk if she doesn't want to.

Yeah, I looked. 12 per 100,000 is not a signifigant risk by any stretch of the imagination.

Who owns your body?

No one owns my body. Not even me. If we could own ourselves, then we could sell ourselves into slavery in repayment of debt or our bodies (as pieces of property) could be won in law suits for payment of damages.

I am arguing that there are two sets of rights here - which is more important? The born person or the unborn human?

The right to live is a human right. All rights are secondary to the right to live.




OK. Hard question time. Since we began this discussion, how many different ways have you tried to justify abortion. What I mean is, how many paths have you gone down with your arguments?

How many have I used? I can tell you right now. One. The right to live outweighs all other rights unless law is written that specifically enumerates which right is being denied, from whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied.

Now, for the tough question. Is this discussion about you trying to prove that your particular justification for abortion is more rational and powerful than my argument to stop it; or are you just hurling ideas against the wall hoping that sooner or later you will get one to stick and at that point, the one that sticks becomes your justification for abortion?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I think we should all get real here...

Abortion is legal. Legal abortion is overwhelmingly supported and we live in a democracy where "overwhelmingly supported" means something.

What are you talking about?

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abopoll05.htm

 

[Coyote]

No. I don't make an acception for rape. I fall back on the hirearchy of rights and the fact that you, nor any other pro choicer can make an argument that applies equally to all of us. Without fail, you have to single out a particular group and claim separate rules for "them".

No other group usurps another human's body or life - against that human's will. Tell me - is any other human group given carte blanche the right to take another human's body for 9 months, and possibly her life - AGAINST HER WILL? What about her rights? When faced with a decision that could involve her death - you are saying she has no rights. You are taking away her rights in the matter. Is that not singling out a particular group and claiming seperate rules for "them"?

Right. I took a minute to research that and the highest number I could find in the US was 12.5 per 100,000 from the WHO for 1998 and the American Journal for Obstetrics and Gynecology says 7.5 per 100,000 in 2001. Further, they say that that 7.5 number is exacerbated by the fact that cecaerians have increased by 25% since 1978 and that the rate of maternal mortality is increased by a factor of 4 when a cecaerian is opted for over natural vaginal delivery.

The numbers varies depending on race and age and medical condition of the woman for example it's higher in black women, very young or older mothers. In the end it makes no difference if you are the one facing the choice.

Spin it however you like, but even 12 per 100,000 is a negligeble risk.

Sure...if you aren't the one facing the choice.

Not necessary. Every single one of us, you included "used" another human being's body. In order for your argument to carry any weight at all, you are going to have to point out a group that hasn't used someone elses body.

Against that person's will? That is the argument I am making.

As I have stated repeatedly, if the mother's life or long term health are in genuine danger, she has the right to defend herself.

And I have stated that every pregnancy faces a small but significant risk of mortality or serious health complications. She has the right to make that choice as to whether she is willing to bear them.

No. It is a very simple system. All rights are secondary to the right to live. People with unjust motives need to create the illusion of complication in order to see their agenda to fruition.

So long as my life isn't being threatened (and a percentage of 0.00012 doesn't constitute a real threat) the unborn's right to live outweighs my right to not be inconvenienced.

The possibility of death or serious health complications are not an "inconvenience".

No one owns my body. Not even me. If we could own ourselves, then we could sell ourselves into slavery in repayment of debt or our bodies (as pieces of property) could be won in law suits for payment of damages.

I think you are stretching here. Our bodies belong to us - that has never been argued otherwise. And frankly - I do not acknowledge anyone's ownership of my body besides myself.

OK. Hard question time. Since we began this discussion, how many different ways have you tried to justify abortion. What I mean is, how many paths have you gone down with your arguments?

Do you include the stem cell debate? If so - I acknowledge I went down many paths in order to develop my position.

If you mean abortion - I have stuck to one main argument: That there are two competing sets of rights involved and that we have the right to make life and death decisions concerning our own bodies and that right is higher than the claim any other being might have on our bodies.

How many have I used? I can tell you right now. One. The right to live outweighs all other rights unless law is written that specifically enumerates which right is being denied, from whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied.

Now, for the tough question. Is this discussion about you trying to prove that your particular justification for abortion is more rational and powerful than my argument to stop it; or are you just hurling ideas against the wall hoping that sooner or later you will get one to stick and at that point, the one that sticks becomes your justification for abortion?

Every one of my arguments comes down to one point: I am the only one that has the right to make life and death decisions concerning my own body because I am the one who must live with it or die because of it. Yes, another human may die because of that decision but primacy of my body belongs to me. No one has the right to sentance me to possible death so another being can use my body.

 

[Coyote]

Actually prohibition worked out quite well as far as cutting down the consumption of alcohol goes. The majority of people who consumed alcohol prior to prohibition did not consume alcohol during prohibition.

It also saw a spike in violence, illegal distillaries, moonshining, bootlegging, speakeasies - only the visable end of consumption was curtailed. I believe history generally considers prohibition a failure...

I didn't say pill did I? I said a more effective contraceptive than we have now. Are you arguing that there is no room for improvement?

Nope - there's always room for improvement.

Are you trying to make the argument that most of, or even a large percentage of the children who are aborted are crack babies, or deformed?

No, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

It would be one of the few uses of my tax money that I woud actually agree with. Also, you seem to be assuming that the rate of unwanted pregnancy will remain flat when abortion is no longer a viable option. Upon what do you base such an assumption?

According to a book I've read that is well researched and referenced, (http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=0060185104) - the rate of unwanted pregnancy has not significantly changed with the advent of legal abortion. What has changed is that instead of having the babies in secret, or shotgun marriages, or illegal abortions - they had legal abortions.

You don't think that people consider the consequences of their actions if they actually have to deal with those consequences?

Hindsight is perfect. Sometimes the consequences aren't readily apparent and sometimes not something you have control over - like rape - or are you going to argue it's the woman's own fault?

That is what I have been hearing since 1972. What is your solution?

I don't totally know what my solution is but I do know that making abortion illegal is not a solution - it wasn't effective when it was illegal. Any solution is going to have to take into account an emphasis on persnal responsibility, reverence for life, readily available contraception and education. It only affected those to poor to obtain a safe legal abortion elsewhere or a safer illegal abortion.

 

[palerider]

No other group usurps another human's body or life - against that human's will. Tell me - is any other human group given carte blanche the right to take another human's body for 9 months, and possibly her life - AGAINST HER WILL? What about her rights? When faced with a decision that could involve her death - you are saying she has no rights. You are taking away her rights in the matter. Is that not singling out a particular group and claiming seperate rules for "them"?

Like I said, everyone in history who set out to dehumanize another group so that they could be killed without consequence had their reasons and all of their reasons seemed like good ones to a fairly large number of people or the groups they targeted would never have been persecuted. Your "body usurpation" is just the latest greates reason you have presented in this discussion.

Every decision we make could involve our death. Deciding to have the abortion could result in her death. A study published by the Southern Medical Journal that looked at death records and insurance payments for both births and abortions found that women who have abortions are over 150% more likely to commit suicide, and over 40% more likely to die from some other natural cause. Oddly enough, they are also over 40% more likely to die in an accident (possibly due to the much greater incidence of clinical depression in women who have abortions than the general population of women).

When all factors are examined, it seems that the decision to kill the child represents a higher risk than the decision to have it and give it up.

Sure...if you aren't the one facing the choice.

Considering factors after the abortion makes abortion the more risky choice.

Against that person's will? That is the argument I am making.

You don't know that. We very often do things against our will.

And I have stated that every pregnancy faces a small but significant risk of mortality or serious health complications. She has the right to make that choice as to whether she is willing to bear them.

That argument has failed Coyote. The statistical risk of having the abortion is greater than the risk of simply delivering the child.

The possibility of death or serious health complications are not an "inconvenience".

Possibility? Isn't that something like potential. Weren't you arguing that if something has the "potential" to be a thing, that it actually isn't that thing but only a dream of that thing? The statistics alone make a sham of any such argument Coyote and if you are the sort that plays the percentages and acts on statistics, delivering the child is about 3 times safer than aborting it. And now that there has been found a link between abortion and breast cancer, the risks of abortion are only going to increase.

I think you are stretching here. Our bodies belong to us - that has never been argued otherwise. And frankly - I do not acknowledge anyone's ownership of my body besides myself.

Sorry. We don't own our bodies. Try selling a kidney or any part of it that does not regenerate. Legally, you can sell anything that you legally own.

Do you include the stem cell debate? If so - I acknowledge I went down many paths in order to develop my position.

It is all the same debate. My position here is identical to my position there. Killing is killing whether it is for medical research or for convenience. The constant is the unborn's inalienable right to live.

If you mean abortion - I have stuck to one main argument: That there are two competing sets of rights involved and that we have the right to make life and death decisions concerning our own bodies and that right is higher than the claim any other being might have on our bodies.

There are always two competing sets of rights. In every murder and manslaughter case that was ever tried, there were two competing sets of rights. In every situation that involves more than one of us, there are multiple sets of competing rights and the hirearchy of our rights works in every single one of them. "Except" (according to you and all who have set out to dehumanize the unborn) in this case.

Every one of my arguments comes down to one point: I am the only one that has the right to make life and death decisions concerning my own body because I am the one who must live with it or die because of it. Yes, another human may die because of that decision but primacy of my body belongs to me. No one has the right to sentance me to possible death so another being can use my body.

The flaw in that position however is that you can't make life and death decisions for yourself that are going to result directly in the death of another human being unless that other is representing a real and immediate threat to your life or long term health. Refer to the hirearchy of rights. Do you believe you could go into a court of law and claim that you killed that shady character because he represented a 1 in 100,000 chance of mugging and killing you? Give me a break.

It also saw a spike in violence, illegal distillaries, moonshining, bootlegging, speakeasies - only the visable end of consumption was curtailed. I believe history generally considers prohibition a failure...

The violence was limited to specific geographical areas that already had high incidences of gangs and violence. And if you make an activity illegal, then anyone who continues to do it is going to be a criminal. If we struck the murder and manslaughter laws from the books, then the rate of murder and manslaughter woud drop to nothing overnight. Then if we made murder and manslaugher illegal again, the rate would spike all over again and history would say that prohibiting murder and manslaugher was a failure.

No, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

There is no flaw in my argument which is why you find yourself trying so many different approaches to defeat it. My argument works for every living human being and doesn't require that any one group be separated out or dehumanized.

According to a book I've read that is well researched and referenced, (http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=0060185104) - the rate of unwanted pregnancy has not significantly changed with the advent of legal abortion. What has changed is that instead of having the babies in secret, or shotgun marriages, or illegal abortions - they had legal abortions.

You are going to need more than one book to convince me that the rate of unwanted pregnancy hasn't increased with the advent of legal abortions. Over 40 million have been killed. When applied to the population figures prior to legalized abortion, the numbers just don't jibe. I lived a lot of years before Roe and I can remember this girl or that girl dissappearing for a period of time to have a child, but the figures since roe have at times, been over 300 per thousand.

Hindsight is perfect. Sometimes the consequences aren't readily apparent and sometimes not something you have control over - like rape - or are you going to argue it's the woman's own fault?

Studies have shown that the rate of pregnancy due to rape is as little as 1 per 1,000 because of the stress levels involved.

You keep injecting rape into the discussion as if it were a real sticking point with you. Would you support outlawing all abortion except in cases of rape and when the mothers life were in danger or is the rape argument just another basically dishonest tool you are using in your attempt to dehumanize unborns?

I don't totally know what my solution is but I do know that making abortion illegal is not a solution - it wasn't effective when it was illegal. Any solution is going to have to take into account an emphasis on persnal responsibility, reverence for life, readily available contraception and education. It only affected those to poor to obtain a safe legal abortion elsewhere or a safer illegal abortion.

Don't "totally" know? You dont have any idea. That suggestion was just another lump of crap thrown at the wall hoping for something to stick. And of course it was effective when it was illegal. There weren't a million illegal abortions per year prior to roe. There isn't a shred of statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. The coathanger was and still is a myth and the man who invended it has publicly admitted that he was "lying out of his ass". The fact that a thing will still occasionally happen if it is made illegal is not a reason to leave it legal if it is simply wrong. If such arguments were valid, then we should erase all laws which still get violated (all of them) from the books.

 

[Coyote]

Like I said, everyone in history who set out to dehumanize another group so that they could be killed without consequence had their reasons and all of their reasons seemed like good ones to a fairly large number of people or the groups they targeted would never have been persecuted. Your "body usurpation" is just the latest greates reason you have presented in this discussion.

No. It doesn't involve "dehumanizing". It is about competing sets of rights. Who owns a person body? Who has the right to determine whether that person lives or dies?

Does any human being have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will? It's a simple question really. There is nothing dehumanizing about it.

Every decision we make could involve our death. Deciding to have the abortion could result in her death. A study published by the Southern Medical Journal that looked at death records and insurance payments for both births and abortions found that women who have abortions are over 150% more likely to commit suicide, and over 40% more likely to die from some other natural cause. Oddly enough, they are also over 40% more likely to die in an accident (possibly due to the much greater incidence of clinical depression in women who have abortions than the general population of women).

Actually, some of that is myth. A study published in the British Medical Journal said that while there is a correlation between abortion and depression, the strongest indicator for post-abortion distress was if it is a preexisting condition prior to pregnancy – i.e., abortion does not create the condition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4379422.stm

However - all of that ignores the point: choice. She has the choice as to whether she wants to risk death in bringing a baby to term or by having an abortion. She is not forced in either direction.

When all factors are examined, it seems that the decision to kill the child represents a higher risk than the decision to have it and give it up.

Considering factors after the abortion makes abortion the more risky choice.

No. At this point - childbirth carries a greater risk of serious health effects or mortality then abortion unless you are referring to a late term abortion where the risks are essentially the same. Attempts to form causal links between abortion and depression, abortion and breast cancer, for example have been largely debunked.

And anyway - shouldn't she be the one to choose which risks to take with her life? Wouldn't it be better to convince her abortion is not the right choice rather than legislate it?

That argument has failed Coyote. The statistical risk of having the abortion is greater than the risk of simply delivering the child.

It has not failed. You provide ONE study that indicates this. I can and have provided multiple links and studies that show the statistical risk of having an abortion is significantly lower than that of childbirth - unless you are talking about late term abortions when the risk is essentially the same

 

[Coyote]

Possibility? Isn't that something like potential. Weren't you arguing that if something has the "potential" to be a thing, that it actually isn't that thing but only a dream of that thing? The statistics alone make a sham of any such argument Coyote and if you are the sort that plays the percentages and acts on statistics, delivering the child is about 3 times safer than aborting it. And now that there has been found a link between abortion and breast cancer, the risks of abortion are only going to increase.

You're statistics are way off - I suggest you do a bit more research. The National Cancer Institute, the Mayo Clinic, and others have totally debunked the abortion/breast cancer risk. That was the biggest load of bollocks yet attempted by the pro-life crowd. As a scientist, I thought you would have a more critical mind.

So let me ask again: is death a mere "inconvenience"?


Are you saying that other human beings have rights to our bodies against our will? Where is the legal justification for this?

It is all the same debate. My position here is identical to my position there. Killing is killing whether it is for medical research or for convenience. The constant is the unborn's inalienable right to live.

No. It is not the same debate at all. With stemcell research you are dealing with only one set of rights. With abortion you are dealing with two sets of rights - the rights of two different human beings who both some right to live and the question becomes which right is greater. You are also dealing with another fundamental right - who has rights to a human beings body?

There are always two competing sets of rights. In every murder and manslaughter case that was ever tried, there were two competing sets of rights. In every situation that involves more than one of us, there are multiple sets of competing rights and the hirearchy of our rights works in every single one of them. "Except" (according to you and all who have set out to dehumanize the unborn) in this case.

You do not have competing sets of rights that exist in the same way as pregnancy does. It is a unique situation and it is not "dehumanizing" any group to recognize it. In fact, it really seems as if you are dehumanizing pregnant women by insisting that they can and should be forced to bear a child against their will and face the risk of associated mortality and health issues. Against their will. What other group of human beings is treated thus?

The flaw in that position however is that you can't make life and death decisions for yourself that are going to result directly in the death of another human being unless that other is representing a real and immediate threat to your life or long term health. Refer to the hirearchy of rights. Do you believe you could go into a court of law and claim that you killed that shady character because he represented a 1 in 100,000 chance of mugging and killing you? Give me a break.

So basically, it's ok to make life and death decisions for one group of people (pregnant women) but not another (fetus')? You can force one group to face a risk of death against their will in order to benifit another group that is using that person's body against their will?

 

[Coyote]

There is no flaw in my argument which is why you find yourself trying so many different approaches to defeat it. My argument works for every living human being and doesn't require that any one group be separated out or dehumanized.

I have taken and stuck with one position on the matter of abortion: no one has the right to force another person to risk death against their will. Your argument does not work for rape victims.

You are going to need more than one book to convince me that the rate of unwanted pregnancy hasn't increased with the advent of legal abortions. Over 40 million have been killed. When applied to the population figures prior to legalized abortion, the numbers just don't jibe. I lived a lot of years before Roe and I can remember this girl or that girl dissappearing for a period of time to have a child, but the figures since roe have at times, been over 300 per thousand.

It's a lengthy and well researched book with a lot of references and footnotes supporting it's claims. It's focus was not abortion but history. I have no problem with it.

Studies have shown that the rate of pregnancy due to rape is as little as 1 per 1,000 because of the stress levels involved.

It doesn't matter if it occurs and you make no exceptions for it.

You keep injecting rape into the discussion as if it were a real sticking point with you. Would you support outlawing all abortion except in cases of rape and when the mothers life were in danger or is the rape argument just another basically dishonest tool you are using in your attempt to dehumanize unborns?

It is the major sticking point I have with your view. If exception were made to rape - and that would include incest because that is a violation of a child against her will then I might agree. But I suspect you would require a court of law to convict first, and that would take a great deal of time. Many rapes don't get reported. So again, the pregnant woman loses out on decisions regarding her body and she is unable to participate in decisions regarding her life or death.

Don't "totally" know? You dont have any idea. That suggestion was just another lump of crap thrown at the wall hoping for something to stick.

No, it's simply a recognition that complex problems seldom have simple solutions.

And of course it was effective when it was illegal. There weren't a million illegal abortions per year prior to roe. There isn't a shred of statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. The coathanger was and still is a myth and the man who invended it has publicly admitted that he was "lying out of his ass". The fact that a thing will still occasionally happen if it is made illegal is not a reason to leave it legal if it is simply wrong. If such arguments were valid, then we should erase all laws which still get violated (all of them) from the books.

You don't have a shred of evidence to support your view. The best evidence is to look at what is happening TODAY in countries where abortion is illegal or medical facilities rare or inadequate.