A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Well no you haven't. You haven't even addressed the question. Pretending there is no question by changing the subject is not answering the question, let alone defeating it.

    An example is my current Federal Government who proposed and completed their first budget a couple of nights ago and raised and created a plethora of taxes, in direct contradiction to all of their election promises that they would not do what they are now trying to do. When confronted about the clear discord between the election promises and what they are now trying to do, they deny there is a difference in what they promised and what they are now doing and instead complain about the previous Government (now in opposition).. They haven't addressed the questions in as much as they are pretending the questions and the issues brought up in the questions do not exist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, I am a little surprised at the depths to which some moderators on SF will sink. The question itself has been addressed already, and it is false to pretend otherwise. You're evading the answer; I see no response of yours above that addresses my critique of Tiassa's false dilemma argument. Do you wish to post one now?

    That is classic misrepresentation of the facts. Again.

    Yes, that would be an apt summary of what you're trying to do; don't think your efforts have gone unnoticed. And since you're very interested in the actual question - whatever you transitionally perceive that to be - then you will find my response to Tiassa in the other thread, at this link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...rsonhood-FAP&p=3191134&viewfull=1#post3191134. Make your response there.

    BTW: that thing you're on now is called a 'petard'. Make the best of your flight. I'll be waiting.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    As I said to Balerion, changing the subject is not answering the question. And pretending the subject of the question does not exist is certainly not answering the question.

    Your approach to the question is to pretend it simply does not exist by changing the question entirely.

    It's like my asking you how the weather is and you respond by telling me how great the driving conditions were.. For all I know, you could be talking about lack of traffic and not any rain/hail/snow that may have fallen while you were driving.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Blighty, Blimey!

    I've answered it several times. Your approach to the question is to pretend it can never be answered.

    Why don't you go ahead and pose what you think the question is and I'll answer that one too. Bonne chance in the snowbelt.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,864
    Followed by a quick subject change to -

    Perhaps when asked about the budget they could bring up the abortion debate.
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Telling someone they cannot get an abortion is telling them that they have to have a baby. There is nothing more life changing for a woman than having a baby so it is telling a woman how to live their lives. This is my problem with men on this subject. They seem to think being pregnant is some duck walk. That its just something that takes place internally completely separate from the woman. Its not. Not at all. Being pregnant necessitates that she take care of herself AS IF she were pregnant which is an economic burden for some. She must also alter her lifestyle which she may not want to do. It can impede her work situation and it can impede her relationships depending on what is going on. But for me its the fact that you are imposing pregnancy. I mean if making abortion illegal meant a woman would just throw her hands in the air and have a baby there wouldn't have been (and in some cases there are still) women dying from botched abortions they either inflict on themselves or by the hand of another. A safe abortion saves lives and there's no argument to defeat that.

    If you can find me a case, just one case, whereby a parent decided chose death because they couldn't physically abuse their child I cannot wait to hear about it and I will concede the argument. On the other hand there are many many young women who have killed themselves because they were pregnant and couldn't find a way out. And of course there were those who died trying to find an illegal way out.

    Of course there are some very loving pro life people out there who simply don't give a shit

    'Mississippi recently passed a law in an effort to force the last remaining abortion clinic in the state to close, which could force women to sometimes critically dangerous alternatives if they are desperate to end a pregnancy. Back ally or coat hanger abortions are life threatening self-induced abortions that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of women. But one Mississippi Republican doesn’t care about those lives.
    Mississippi state Rep. Bubba Carpenter voted for the restrictive abortion law signed by the governor earlier this year and he says it doesn’t matter if women die by attempting coat hanger abortions because it’s all about maintaining what he calls “moral values.” Carpenter says he’s proud that his state basically banned abortion and that he’s proud that his party is forcing desperate poor women to either give birth or die by self-induced abortion.'http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/15/mississippi/

    He said ”It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to– Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger. That’s what we’ve learned over and over and over.’ But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi.”



    Understand now why I assert the pro lifer's don't care about anything save their beliefs?

    My example of reversible vasectomies isn't something I would actively advocate. It was to present an example of how invasive it is to decide one sex must inflict something on their bodies because of someone else's ideas. Of course a vasectomy is far easier than having a baby. If you think its not its because you of course never have to experience pregnancy nor child birth.
    Ha! If someone called me a parasite I would remove myself from their lives completely. I couldn't imagine anything more stunning than to realize you are a burden to someone or that they feel sapped by you. If I were a child being raised by a woman who resented being a parent I would imagine it to be incredibly painful.

    You asked "Free? Why should an elective procedure be free but a lifesaving procedure cost money? If you are arguing that all medical care should be free I can see your argument. "
    Well yes I support universal health care. As a British citizen I think the NHI to be a point of national pride but I wasn't making a case for universal health care. What I am saying is that you have a federal Roe Vs Wade while states are finding ways to shut down abortion clinics making access impossible or they are making it too expensive for women to afford these abortions. So I say if you want to stop LTA then you should make contraceptives and abortion freely accessible and then I would have no problem with an abortion after 12 or 16 weeks illegally. You see if you are a woman with a good job then you can afford an abortion and you can also afford to travel for an abortion but this isn't the case for poor women. Banning abortions affect poor women since even when no abortion was legal except to save the mother's life wealthy women always had access to private doctors who would perform one. It was the poor women who died or were overwhelmed by poverty and children they couldn't afford to feed. If the answer to pregnancy was to simply not have sex then there would be no abortions. Its a really silly argument since we have all of history to prove this answer isn't an answer. Abortions have been around since the days before Christ. There have ALWAYS been women seeking abortions. Women, even if you make it illegal, will still seek out abortions. The "she should just not have sex" argument is as unrealistic as Reagan's "Just say no!". It doesn't work. It has never worked. If those who feel so morally superior as to impose great restrictions on women's reproductive health and tell them they should be forced to carry a child because they have denied access to abortion then I don't see it as so extraordinary to demand all of society to pay for abortion services. It costs less than women dropping further into poverty because of unwanted children, it costs less than it does to raise unwanted children in orphanages, it costs less than what it takes to bury a woman who's bled out from a botched abortion. It certainly costs less than having a growing underclass of poor disenfranchised people. Remember that this doesn't affect women who are educated and have money, only the poorest with the least educated. If these are the women you want having child after child then good luck America. You'll soon resemble Romania.

    I find the last statement unworthy of response. If you think that all children given up for adoption are adopted then you really do live in some cushioned bubble. Its not true, its especially not true for minority children. Don't be fooled by hollywood trends. In 2005 there were 51,210 who grew up in orphanages. Let's see what that number would be if there were no abortions? Ever read Dickens. He would laugh at what America is doing right now.

    You claim that you are interested in abortion because half the people in your life are women. Well imagine if even one of those women died from a botched abortion? Imagine how desperate she would have felt to even take that option? And ask yourself was it worth the life of a fetus.

    'Guttmacher Institute points out that the legality of abortion — unlike access to contraception — has absolutely no correlation to the abortion rate, since women have abortion procedures regardless of the law. In fact, some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in countries in Latin America and Africa, in places where abortion is highly restricted but where women have many unintended pregnancies because they lack adequate access to contraceptive services. On the other hand, some of the lowest abortion rates are in countries in western Europe, where modern contraceptives are more readily available and where abortion is safe, legal, and accessible.
    Expanding access to contraception, rather than restricting abortion, will ultimately save women’s lives.' http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/04/963901/47000-women-die-each-year-from-unsafe-abortions/

    So there you have it! Making abortion illegal is really not about if a woman has an abortion but rather if a woman dies while having an abortion. But yes you claim you care about them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Child abuse is something that all society has agreed upon is unacceptable. Probably because we all remember childhood. A child who is abused is more likely to grow up and be an abuser, a child who is abused doesn't develop as well as one who hasn't and therefore all of society has to deal with the ramifications of an abused child. Women who have abortions don't impact society. The lack of a fetus doesn't impact you. An unwanted pregnancy does impact the woman. We weren't having this discussion around LTA's but abortion in general. You should go back and read my posts properly.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,864
    I agree.

    Were you answering someone else and accidentally answered my post?
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    My post is long so perhaps you should read my whole argument and my response to Geoff while you're at it.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    A fetus given up for adoption impacts the woman?

    I'll try to read your posts proper-like next time, missus.
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879

    LOL. A fetus given up for adoption? Well I guess yes if you can find a family before the child is birthed. But YES. Of course it does. If you don't want to even be pregnant then having to give birth is a trauma. If you want to give up a child for adoption it still has major impact. The story of Avery Cloud-Klein an adopted black child into a Jewish family. Right before college this young woman decides she wants to find her birth mother. She goes through an agency and writes her birth mother. The adopted child is full of hope about this woman, wants to meet her etc. The birth mother writes her back. She tells her she's married has other children and she's glad the child was adopted by a nice family. Avery waits and waits for another letter but doesn't get one. Its explained to her that the birth mother probably hadn't even told her present husband and children about the adoption and it would be an incredible overturning of her life to bring this adopted child into her life or even be forced to tell her husband and children about her. Avery starts to go through major identity issues turning against her adopted parents, dropping out of school and finally getting pregnant. Avery decides to get an abortion. Why? Because she feels she couldn't possibly give up a child into adoption. The birth mother never contacts Avery again.

    So yeah there can be trauma all around. There's an excellent documentary on the subject of Avery called "Off and Running".

    The fact that you don't see going through an unwanted pregnancy can itself be a trauma tells me everything of what you don't understand. I mean if you willingly decide upon adoption its still a completely life changing event. If you are forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy its a life changing hell.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,864
    So is late term abortion. If the fetus is developed enough that it can be given up for adoption, then it is by definition a late term abortion. Those are traumatic.

    And if it's not developed enough that it can be given up for adoption, none of the above applies.

    That's a problem for the CHILD not the mother. Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better to kill Avery so she wouldn't have to go through painful parts of her life? Personally I'd prefer that Avery make that choice for herself.

    Of course it's traumatic. So is abortion, especially late term abortion. (And yes, that is what the post you replied to was talking about.)
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Well aren't they banned save for for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health? Yes. So if its say an abortion where the child will be born without a cranium and then left to starve to death or simply die from an infection then yes its traumatic but perhaps not as traumatic. If its an ectopic pregnancy then its more traumatic when both the mother and the fetus die.

    You are pretending that the very restricted LTA are not informed largely informed by health issues. Because after all why would any woman who KNOWS she doesn't want to be pregnant allow herself to be pregnant for months at a time before getting an abortion? Why? If a woman has access to an abortion at three months wouldn't she take that opportunity? So why would a woman get so far into the sixth, seventh or eighth month? Why would she wait for a procedure that is life threatening whereas an earlier abortion isn't? Stop pretending as if you don't have enough information to understand the issue. Its a restricted event based on heath issues. Or are you claiming that the mother's health is irrelevant?

    As for Avery no I'm not suggesting that but I find it interesting that Avery decided for herself it was better for her to have an abortion instead of opting for adoption considering she herself was adopted. Don't you find that interesting?

    We don't know why Avery's birth mother gave her up for adoption. All we know is that having Avery write her out of the blue when she has moved on and has another family wasn't welcome. And Avery's birth mom CHOSE adoption. Can you imagine what it might mean to not want to be pregnant at all? To not want to give birth at all? To be forced to have an unwanted child? Well obviously not because you behave as if pregnancy just an ejaculation or something simple like that. A simple nine month belly pimple waiting to pop itself.

    Which post exactly? You need to indicate the post. You still haven't replied to my last post just as Geoff didn't reply to his last post. Avoiding the argument perhaps? I'm consider it you conceding your former argument.

    Let me go and find the supreme court ruling on LTA's so you can have a better understanding of how much it is restricted.

    'In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state’s interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. The Supreme Court has held that even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;” “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health; only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes“health” and when a fetus is viable; and states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.'


    How would you restrict it further save to not allow women with health issues? Or do you want to force women carrying babies with severe disabilities they cannot possibly survive going to term? Or what exactly? What more can you restrict and most importantly WHY?

    Because if you thought there were LTA's happening simply because of money or access then you would be asking for better access and affordable services, not trying to further limit, restrict or ban LTAs.

    As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order. In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

    The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow. Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

    Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks). The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests. Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".

    Ten states require a second physician to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".

    Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive. The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,864
    Not in many states.
    They are not. Only 2% of abortions after 16 weeks are performed due to health issues discovered in the fetus. Most later abortions are performed because the woman didn't know she was pregnant or didn't know she was so far along and thus waited.
    That is an excellent question. I don't know - but it clearly happens very often.
    ?? No. I am stating that, of the people who get later abortions, the vast majority claim that they didn't know they were pregnant or didn't know they were so far along. You may find that inconceivable. If you do, I recommend you do some research, perhaps ask all the women who said they did not know how far along they were why they waited.

    However, keep in mind that just because you cannot understand it, that does not translate to 'therefore it's not a problem.'
    Not particularly. A lot of women have abortions for a lot of reasons.
    No, I just refuse to answer strawmen.

    Here's how this works. "I am actually arguing for fewer restrictions on abortion than you are. So why do you hate women?"
    ^^^ The above was a strawman argument. I would not expect you to answer it.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I read below that I hadn't responded to this argument and sensed that you were mad about that for some reason or other.

    Well, it's probably less of an impact than death.

    Do you think adoption is worse than abortion? Whose hell is worse?
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It happens more often, I think, then people realize.

    In this example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAbF5DzVSPo
    She was on birth control and had two negative pregnancy tests seperated by a month.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The common view that denied pregnancies [a woman's lack of awareness of being pregnant] are exotic and rare events is not valid. Deliveries in which the woman has not been aware of her pregnancy until going into labour occur about three times more often than triplets (1:7225, Hellin rule). Denial of pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or later, occurs more often than rhesus haemolytic disease (1:1000 since Rhesus prophylaxis has become available) or a uterine rupture (1:1500). Denial of pregnancy may put both mother and fetus at risk.

    The ratio of one denied pregnancy in 475 births is based on complete reporting within a large region (all births in Berlin metropolitan area during one year) and is representative for the total population of a German federal state. In all of Germany in 1995 and 1996 there were about 770 000 deliveries per year; on this basis we calculate that in about 1600 births the mother would not have been aware of her pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation, or later—and each year 300 women would not have realised they were pregnant until going into labour.
    Source
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    all this hoopla over abortions.

    if men got pregnant abortions would be a god given right.
     
  22. haircutter Registered Member

    Messages:
    64
    Is it a rule that you have to be able to spell correctly to belong to sciforums?
     
  23. !!!!!batman!!!!! Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    a quote by carl sagan goes “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.”. from my perspective that pretty much sums up what god is.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page