Solutions

OKgrannie said:

HOGWASH! 50% of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Do you really think THAT many women are incompetent and/or irresponsible? That is truly a misogynistic view of women!

Click to expand...

How many of those women were using contraception and relying on it to work? How many of those women have used sex as a tool to attract their mate rather than their inherent value as interesting and valuable human beings? How many of those women have forfeited their responsibility concerning the control of their fertility to drugs--and when that fails, resorted to killing a life that was unintentionally created because they were LIED to about so called "SAFE" sex? Women have become irresponsible and incompetent in a large part due to the LIES and HALF-truths your side spreads. Tell a woman her fertility must be denied for her to amount to anything--that if she can't have sex without getting pregnant she is never going to get anywhere because she has to have sex to be accepted in this society, and if she gets pregnant she won't get educated, she won't get the best jobs, she won't be respected, she'll just be a COW tending her rabid brood....and what do you get? Self-hating women who resent themselves and resent children. Tell a woman her fertility and her body is a precious thing--that her worth is not at all related to spreading her legs or growing big boobs--that sex is not a rite of passage into puberty or womanhood, it is a glorious thing that is sacred and important and meaningful--tell a woman that childbearing and family are worthy and honorable--that women are of value for their unique qualities as human individuals, and children augment a woman's already honorable position--and they rise to the occasion and live in dignity. You aim for the lowest denominator and cling to the gutter rung because you buy into the "hogwash" of your side's propaganda--to do otherwise would make you take a long hard look at assumptions you've spouted and choices you have made, and it is never easy or fun to see your own error and it's monumental consequences. It is much easier to live in denial, but it is also so much more harmful in the long-run.

OKgrannie said:

Many women do find it hard to keep from getting pregnant. Fertility levels vary and BC doesn't work well for everyone. Some women cannot use some methods for medical reasons. A woman with an unplanned pregnancy is not necessarily stupid or irresponsible. Success with BC depends a LOT on luck.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't depend a lot on luck. That's horseshite. It depends on ones willingness and commitment to use methods available effectively. A woman on birth control and using condoms has close to zero chance of getting pregnant. Now I would agree that some women despite their best use of methods become pregnant. However those women do not represent the high abortion numbers we see today. There are women who have their tubes tied or their men have had a vasectomy and they still get pregnant. Those cases are rare but I agree they happen and those women aren't stupid or irresponsible. They are just unlucky depending on your point of view. However science has advanced far enough that most of us are not relying alot on luck.

It would be better for such a woman to recognize that she can not handle the demands of motherhood and abort them instead of neglecting them.

Click to expand...

There are people on waiting lists waiting for healthy infants that are all but impossible to find in the US.

Your suggestion seems no different to me than a hysterical woman drowning her infant in the bathtub because her man has left her alone with no money. That's a bad choice. There are better ways to protect the future of her child. Killing her child to spare it a bleak future is void of creativity, honor, and ingenutiy.

Abortion is not necessarily a poor choice in every circumstance, and no one knows that circumstance better than the pregnant woman. Pregnancy/childbirth is NOT just inconvenient. "Inconvenient" is when the phone rings while you're in the shower, "inconvenient" is when the doorbell rings while you're on the phone, "inconvenient" is when you realize you're out of vanilla in the midst of mixing a cake, etc., it doesn't BEGIN to cover pregnancy/childbirth.

Click to expand...

A healthy woman with an uncomplicated pregnancy deciding to kill her unborn because she doesn't want to be pregnant for nine months and go about the business of picking a loving couple to raise the child she is unable to care for is the height of selfishness. Women choosing to abort in most cases are not doing so because they were raped or because the pregnancy poses a genuine health risk. They are doing it because 9 months is too long for them to be pregnant and inconvenienced. And they have put their desire to not be pregnant above the life of the human in their womb. They have in effect decided that carrying a baby for nine months is less convenient for them than carrying the child for nine months and allowing that human to live out it's life with another couple who would love to have it.

OKgrannie said:

You're right about my sympathies, but I would not disallow abortion, as the fetus is unwanted FOR ANY REASON, the child would be unwanted also, and suffer as a result.

Click to expand...

Yeah will if there were infants piling up all over the US unwanted I might agree with you that an unwanted child is destined to suffer. Since, in fact, the opposite is true and it is extremely hard to adopt an infant in the US I completely disagree.

I'm completely sure that an intelligent woman with her child's best interest at heart is more than capable of digging through the long lists of couples waiting to adopt to find one that greatly reduces the likelihood that her child will live out it's life in a state of "suffering".

Felicity said:

How many of those women were using contraception and relying on it to work? How many of those women have used sex as a tool to attract their mate rather than their inherent value as interesting and valuable human beings? How many of those women have forfeited their responsibility concerning the control of their fertility to drugs--and when that fails, resorted to killing a life that was unintentionally created because they were LIED to about so called "SAFE" sex? Women have become irresponsible and incompetent in a large part due to the LIES and HALF-truths your side spreads. Tell a woman her fertility must be denied for her to amount to anything--that if she can't have sex without getting pregnant she is never going to get anywhere because she has to have sex to be accepted in this society, and if she gets pregnant she won't get educated, she won't get the best jobs, she won't be respected, she'll just be a COW tending her rabid brood....and what do you get? Self-hating women who resent themselves and resent children. Tell a woman her fertility and her body is a precious thing--that her worth is not at all related to spreading her legs or growing big boobs--that sex is not a rite of passage into puberty or womanhood, it is a glorious thing that is sacred and important and meaningful--tell a woman that childbearing and family are worthy and honorable--that women are of value for their unique qualities as human individuals, and children augment a woman's already honorable position--and they rise to the occasion and live in dignity. You aim for the lowest denominator and cling to the gutter rung because you buy into the "hogwash" of your side's propaganda--to do otherwise would make you take a long hard look at assumptions you've spouted and choices you have made, and it is never easy or fun to see your own error and it's monumental consequences. It is much easier to live in denial, but it is also so much more harmful in the long-run.

Click to expand...

Approximately 50% of women with unplanned pregnancies were using BC in the month they got pregnant. Approximately 50% of unplanned pregnancies will be aborted. Most women do want children and family and believe they are the most important things in their lives, BUT not the ONLY things. Most women want to do the best they can for the children they have, and that means limiting the number of the children they have, and also postponing childbirth until they are prepared for it. For most of us, limiting the number of children we have means using BC. I believe that's a good thing, women are healthier and the children they bear are also healthier.

OKgrannie said:

Approximately 50% of women with unplanned pregnancies were using BC in the month they got pregnant.

Click to expand...

OK....:roll: ....that right there should be a giant :doh DUH..for you. Thank you for proving an aspect of my point....and thank you 1069 for thanking her for it.:roll:

OKgrannie said:

You're right about my sympathies, but I would not disallow abortion, as the fetus is unwanted FOR ANY REASON, the child would be unwanted also, and suffer as a result.

Click to expand...

This is blatantly false. Children who are given up for adoption by definition are unwanted by their birth mothers for whatever reason. Are you saying that adopted children suffer and are unwanted? Also, are you saying there are never cases where a woman who might have had reservations about becoming a mother during the first trimester when most fetuses are aborted NEVER grows through the course of the pregnancy and the course of the child's life to love and want that child? I would argue that this is the course of your logic and it is clearly incorrect.

Cremaster77 said:

This is blatantly false. Children who are given up for adoption by definition are unwanted by their birth mothers for whatever reason. Are you saying that adopted children suffer and are unwanted? Also, are you saying there are never cases where a woman who might have had reservations about becoming a mother during the first trimester when most fetuses are aborted NEVER grows through the course of the pregnancy and the course of the child's life to love and want that child? I would argue that this is the course of your logic and it is clearly incorrect.

Click to expand...

Did you know that there is more emotional trauma for women relinquishing children for adoption than from abortion? Children who were adopted also suffer from the separation:

The Birth Scene: Adoption

Having reservations about becoming a mother is a different kettle of fish from NOT WANTING to become a mother. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy should NEVER be advised to continue her pregnancy because she "will grow to love it."

Cremaster77 said:

the point at which you state that valuing human life (born or unborn) is a subjective fallacy, you lose your credibility.

Click to expand...

Whoop-te-do. As if there are no incredible-but-true things in the Real World, like Quantum Mechanics? I don't care how not-credible ("not believable") my argument is, because that does not count as a logical or factual invalidation of the argument. Try again!

Cremaster77 said:

Once you agree that anyone can make the decision as to what qualifies as a person ...

Click to expand...

But that is not what I wrote. Declaring a valuation, and defining a specification, are two different things. The first is subjective, always, and the second can in principle be Objective.

Cremaster77 said:

... or who is not defective, you commit the error that has been committed throughout history with disastrous results. It's an arrogant position that has demonstrates how little you actually understand about how a functional society works.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, your conclusion demonstrates how little you actually understood what I'm talking about. Remember the Romans? They had a functional society that included killing whatever infants they considered defective. I don't know the specifications they made for "defective", but apparently their culture was willing to accept it for quite a few centuries. A Republic-style culture, I might add.

FutureIncoming said:

various things are subject to a "pendulum" phenomenon, such that that disagreement may temporarily prevail. That doesn't mean it is correct; greed tends to temporarily prevail, too, after all.

Click to expand...

Cremaster77 said:

How can you say that saying human life (of a newborn, let's say) matters is a subjective fallacy but then make the subjective statement that greed is incorrect?

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

if you put your words in somebody else's mouth, you can make others say anything you like.

Click to expand...

Cremaster77 said:

I'm not sure how I'm putting words in your mouth

Click to expand...

Compare the original text quoted from #159, to the red text quoted from #165.

FutureIncoming said:

the disallow-abortion side mostly works with invalid data, while the allow-abortion side mostly works with valid data.

Click to expand...

Cremaster77 said:

What is the "valid data" compared to the "invalid data"?

Click to expand...

One piece of invalid data is the notion that a human animal body is the same thing as a human person. Barring notions of ensoulment, the valid data is that the human mind is the human person. For evidence, consider prosthetics technology and advancements thereof. We are just about at the point where we can cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. Do you think that if this happens to some human person, and the parts are widely separated, that person will thereafter be associated with the head, or with the body? If you vote "head", because that's where the mind originates, then you are agreeing with my conclusion that mindless human bodies, such as the brain-dead on life-support, and including fetuses, cannot be persons!
Do you need more valid data than that?

Cremaster77 said:

You're stance has always been that there is some amorphous point at which a human becomes a person and that only "non-defective" humans are subject to protection.

Click to expand...

My, how carefully you try to twist my words. You might not believe how blatantly others here have gone about it in the past, but let me assure you that to see something this mild is almost a pleasure, in comparison. Anyway, first, my stance indeed is that human personhood develops throughout a "gray zone" of growing mental capabilities. On one side of that gray zone, a human measurably and demonstrably has no more mental abilities that ordinary animals of similar brain size. Here's a brain size chart; you can compare the newborn human brain to other animals, and then please tell me why, while fully-developed bigger-brained animals including gorillas like Koko cannot be persons, the newborn human with the still-developing brain must be a person.
Second, there are families out there who will want their children no matter how defective they are. That's a fact. I've never once said that the Government should decide to kill defective humans, and in fact I've said on numerous occasions, prior to your joining this Debate, that "The lack of a right to life is not automatically also the same thing as a death penalty". Too many pro-lifers seem to think otherwise, and you seem to be hinting toward that, too, but the fact is, the logic does not work that way. Right-to-life and death-penalty are not things such that either/or must exist. So, while I have said that I tend to support infanticide of those defectives that don't get aborted first, I have not insisted that it be done. I leave the decision to the parents; they, after all, are the ones who can be required to support the defective child, posslibly for the rest of a 90-year life. "You want it? You pay for it!" is almost a mantra in our culture. I find it very hypocritical of many pro-lifers, who insist that humans must be born, that they don't have to pay for! I've suggested sending all the medical and child-raising bills of abortions-prevented to the pro-lifers for payment, but so far I haven't seen many who want to put their money where their mouth is. Tsk, tsk.

Cremaster77 said:

As I said, it's a foolhardy and arrogant position with no actual data to support when personhood occurs.

Click to expand...

You are asking for something that does not exist, unless ensoulment happens. With respect to the developing human mind, we have a great deal of data regarding how the human-person mind mostly differs in degree, not kind, from the animal mind. That alone makes it practically impossible to specify a particular personhood-point. And that is why I have mentioned the idea of granting personhood rights to the entire gray zone, partly to maintain reasonable alignment with the Historic policy of granting personhood rights at birth**, and partly to leave the opposition with a point they cannot refute: There is for any growing human organism a pure-animal state, on the "undeveloped" side of the gray zone. The duration of this state includes the entire term of pregnancy, plus some modest time after birth, perhaps a couple of months. You should look up how much the brain gets bigger, in only two months after birth, to realize that the pure-animal state can start to be left behind for that reason alone. **So suppose we allowed infanticide in the first month after birth only, and grant personhood protections thereafter. This could allow time to conduct tests to see if the infant is going to develop normally; some forms of extreme retardation are not easily detectable in the womb. The parents would use the test results to decide whether or not to raise the child. Oh, and remember that adoption is not prohibited by this suggested policy -- but if nobody wants to raise the child, then what? I've read that the ancient Romans didn't directly commit infanticide so much as set the infant far outdoors to die of exposure, but today we have various "put to sleep" drugs that makes death much gentler than even that. Finally, while I haven't mentioned it recently, I am aware of the promises associated with "genetic engineering". We might one day weed out the defectives by studying sperm and ovum, even before conception occurs.

Cremaster77 said:

I asked for this and you ramble on about symbol recognition, Free Will, and recognizing time, as if these are definitive endpoints that define a person.

Click to expand...

Those are things, including empathy and imagination, that most animals do not seem to possess to any significant degree. Do you have some reason to think their presense in some non-human organism would not be a good indication of personhood?

Cremaster77 said:

I still have yet to see you address my post in the other thread regarding other factors such as language, upright posture, cooperative play, imagination, etc that you don't use in your definition of "person"

Click to expand...

I think I haven't seen that yet, as I write this. However, language falls into the abstract-symbol-processing category, already included in what I've written, imagination is already included (search for "mind's eye"), and cooperative play is an interesting possibility. Do note that I have not claimed to know everything about how to identify a person. I can specify things that I think are applicable, and so far I haven't encountered disagreement in this Forum on them, but I'm open to additional suggestions. "Upright posture", I think is not so important. Suppose you encountered a mythical type of person known as a "centaur"; is its posture upright or horizontal? Having some means of interacting with the environment (tentacles, anyone?) is more important than posture, I think, but both are just physical things, not mental attributes. The features of a physical body may help a person-class mind to develop, but the body is not the mind/person.

Cremaster77 said:

nor did you address whether a cleft palate or sickle cell anemia constitutes defectiveness.

Click to expand...

My personal opinions regarding defectiveness should be irrlevant, unless I am a parent who has to decide about raising a child in the previously-described scenario.

Cremaster77 said:

Without the ability to equate a newborn child to a housefly, you're entire argument falls apart.

Click to expand...

I do think you are wrong, mostly as indicated elsewhere in this post.

Cremaster77 said:

This equation has been tried and failed throughout history. Why are you able to do so when many smarter men tried and failed?

Click to expand...

Because I am not forcing a particular definition that I have devised. If you have suggested that cooperative play is a sign of personhood, and this notion is accepted as part of a society-wide definition --and if a two-day-old human infant doesn't exhibit that behavior, then would you admit that the infant must still be only an animal?

More later.

OKgrannie said:

Did you know that there is more emotional trauma for women relinquishing children for adoption than from abortion? Children who were adopted also suffer from the separation:

Click to expand...

In most cases this is true. I think the reason for this is that through the course of a pregnancy, the mother develops a bond with the fetus even though she has never actually held it or laid eyes on it. It's much easier to abort a fetus before week 12 when 1) you haven't had time to develop that bond and 2) you don't really feel pregnant aside from some nausea. Ask most women you know who have been pregnant. While you might know you're pregnant during the first trimester, you don't really feel pregnant.

The point is that you have stated that it is better to abort because unwanted children suffer. What are primary reasons why children are aborted? Because of financial inability to provide for the child. Because the mother is not a point in her life where she feels ready to raise the child. What are primary reasons that children are given up for adoption? Same things. Your contention was that ALL unwanted children suffer. If the primary reasons for abortion and adoption are the same, then your line of logic argues that ALL adopted children suffer. In your mind, the suffering from separation that adopted children feel is enough to justify killing them? Using suffering of the child as a rationale for abortion makes no sense.

Having reservations about becoming a mother is a different kettle of fish from NOT WANTING to become a mother. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy should NEVER be advised to continue her pregnancy because she "will grow to love it."

Click to expand...

You completely missed the point. My statement was in response to you stating that unwanted children suffer and this is justification for aborting them. I never said women who don't want their child be advised that they will grow to love them. I said that it is incorrect to assume that a mother who did not want the child at week 12 of gestation will NEVER want that child in the future.

Cremaster77 said:

In most cases this is true. I think the reason for this is that through the course of a pregnancy, the mother develops a bond with the fetus even though she has never actually held it or laid eyes on it. It's much easier to abort a fetus before week 12 when 1) you haven't had time to develop that bond and 2) you don't really feel pregnant aside from some nausea. Ask most women you know who have been pregnant. While you might know you're pregnant during the first trimester, you don't really feel pregnant.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct about bonding with the fetus, in fact, I think you heard it from me. I don't need to ask anybody about how it feels to be pregnant, I have had ample experience, and believe me "some nausea" is not a minor deal.

Cremaster77 said:

The point is that you have stated that it is better to abort because unwanted children suffer. What are primary reasons why children are aborted? Because of financial inability to provide for the child. Because the mother is not a point in her life where she feels ready to raise the child. What are primary reasons that children are given up for adoption? Same things. Your contention was that ALL unwanted children suffer. If the primary reasons for abortion and adoption are the same, then your line of logic argues that ALL adopted children suffer. In your mind, the suffering from separation that adopted children feel is enough to justify killing them? Using suffering of the child as a rationale for abortion makes no sense..

Click to expand...

I am not using "suffering of the child" as a rationale for abortion, since the only rationale needed is that the pregnant woman wants it. I do believe that abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Cremaster77 said:

.... I never said women who don't want their child be advised that they will grow to love them. I said that it is incorrect to assume that a mother who did not want the child at week 12 of gestation will NEVER want that child in the future.

Click to expand...

You said that a woman who "has reservations" about motherhood might decide she wants a child, "reservations" implies ambivalence. Even a woman who chose pregnancy might have moments of ambivalence. "NEVER" and "ALWAYS" rarely apply in the human condition.

OKgrannie said:

Did you know that there is more emotional trauma for women relinquishing children for adoption than from abortion? Children who were adopted also suffer from the separation:

The Birth Scene: Adoption

Having reservations about becoming a mother is a different kettle of fish from NOT WANTING to become a mother. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy should NEVER be advised to continue her pregnancy because she "will grow to love it."

Click to expand...

Yeah I think there will always be some truama associated with being abandoned by your biological parents however I'd argue that most adopted kids would probably rather be alive having gone through some of that than dead.

And as for the mother I can't understand a mentalilty that feels "better" about killing their offspring as opposed to abandoning their offspring. If your head is screwed on right you should feel worse about the "killing" in my opinion.

OKgrannie said:

I do believe that abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Click to expand...

That's just a horseshit talking point. What if the dad "wants" and I mean really wants the child. Let's say daddy is god damn begging for that child's life! Do you think mom should still be able to have it killed?


Of course you do.

So cut the ****.

OKgrannie said:

Most women do want children and family and believe they are the most important things in their lives, BUT not the ONLY things.

Click to expand...

FALSE dichotomy--I absolutely never said that bearing children was the "only" important thing concerning women. Your recasting my premise demonstrates your lack of a rational answer to the whole position I present that is that contraception and the abortion option mentality is a CAUSE of women's denigration rather than a liberator of women’s inherent worth. Address the issue. DEMONSTRATE how neutering women BENEFITS their womanhood.

Most women want to do the best they can for the children they have, and that means limiting the number of the children they have, and also postponing childbirth until they are prepared for it.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't, however, think you should rob Peter to pay Paul. Killing your offspring to benefit your offspring is ridiculous. Controlling your behavior choices and acting in a competent rational manner, rather than being a slave to sexual impulses and societal pressures speaks FAR more clearly of the capabilities and the respectability of women than does a woman who is....
...too weak to say no,
...or too horney to say no,
...or too stupid to say no,
...or too immature to say no,
...or too mislead by duped elitist so-called feminists to say no.

For most of us, limiting the number of children we have means using BC.

Click to expand...

And 50% of unplanned pregnancies result from the poor woman who buy your snake oil. With contraception so readily available, it's obvious that the other 50% who have unplanned pregnancies have CHOSEN to not use birth control or are one of the weak, horney, stupid, (or most likely) immature women (or rather more likely immature children) who have been overly sexualized in this society thanks in large part to propaganda such as yours.

I believe that's a good thing, women are healthier and the children they bear are also healthier.

Click to expand...

Please provide medical evidence that contraception IMPROVES the health of women and children. You are aware that the amount of hormone in BC pills et al far exceeds the hormone levels in HRT pills and HRT has been demonstrated to be detrimental to women's health. Your claim is just another one of those LIES that gets repeated so often fools start buying it as truth.

One of things that I think is really sad about the prochoice movement is that it creates this illusion that birth control is highly ineffective. I think that's a bit of myth. It's pretty damn effective. And using it along with condoms, which you should especially in situations where you don't know or trust your partner completely or you don't want to be pregnant, makes your likelihood of getting pregnant pretty close to damn impossible.

It almost takes away the reproductive power women do have to promote this idea that birth control is ineffective. It's really not. It's probably one of the best inventions to come along, next to the dishwasher. But this idea that it's unreliable might lead to women not taking it the way they should or being lax about using it correctly. :roll:

talloulou said:

One of things that I think is really sad about the prochoice movement is that it creates this illusion that birth control is highly ineffective. I think that's a bit of myth. It's pretty damn effective. And using it along with condoms, which you should especially in situations where you don't know or trust your partner completely or you don't want to be pregnant, makes your likelihood of getting pregnant pretty close to damn impossible.

It almost takes away the reproductive power women do have to promote this idea that birth control is ineffective. It's really not. It's probably one of the best inventions to come along, next to the dishwasher. But this idea that it's unreliable might lead to women not taking it the way they should or being lax about using it correctly. :roll:

Click to expand...

I find your argument ironic. I think most pro-choicers tend to fully support making contraceptives as widely available as possible, including education promoting their use. It is the conservative pro-life element that tends has fits about encouraging the use of contraceptives.

Iriemon said:

I find your argument ironic. I think most pro-choicers tend to fully support making contraceptives as widely available as possible, including education promoting their use. It is the conservative pro-life element that tends has fits about encouraging the use of contraceptives.

Click to expand...

There are some conservatives that would like to see contraceptives outlawed. But they are "extreme" and they certainly aren't the conservative majority. Not even among the religious in the US will you find a majority that has a problem with birth control.

However it is quite common to hear prochoicers proclaim again and again that birth control is ineffective.

talloulou said:

One of things that I think is really sad about the prochoice movement is that it creates this illusion that birth control is highly ineffective. I think that's a bit of myth. It's pretty damn effective. And using it along with condoms, which you should especially in situations where you don't know or trust your partner completely or you don't want to be pregnant, makes your likelihood of getting pregnant pretty close to damn impossible.

It almost takes away the reproductive power women do have to promote this idea that birth control is ineffective. It's really not. It's probably one of the best inventions to come along, next to the dishwasher. But this idea that it's unreliable might lead to women not taking it the way they should or being lax about using it correctly. :roll:

Click to expand...

Even if used appropriately, though it may be effective in preventing pregnancy, it is also effective in contributing to a social environment that eventually INCREASES unintended pregnancy. People's actual behavior is not the same as the potential effectiveness of the BC. The social atmosphere that aims toward the acceptence/normalization of sexual activity seperate from committed relationships (read: legal marriage) and the possible procreation of children increases the incedence of unintended pregnancy.

talloulou said:

There are some conservatives that would like to see contraceptives outlawed. But they are "extreme" and they certainly aren't the conservative majority. Not even among the religious in the US will you find a majority that has a problem with birth control..

Click to expand...

Instead of just calling it extreme--explain the flaw in the position.

Truth is not ruled by majority opinion.

Actually...I'm not looking to "outlaw" BC...although I believe hormonal BC is abortifacient. I would like to see people be HONEST about what BC in general does to society.

talloulou said:

And as for the mother I can't understand a mentalilty that feels "better" about killing their offspring as opposed to abandoning their offspring. If your head is screwed on right you should feel worse about the "killing" in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Telling people how they "should" feel is probably about as effective as telling them how they "should" act.

Felicity said:

Even if used appropriately, though it may be effective in preventing pregnancy, it is also effective in contributing to a social environment that eventually INCREASES unintended pregnancy. People's actual behavior is not the same as the potential effectiveness of the BC. The social atmosphere that aims toward the acceptence/normalization of sexual activity seperate from committed relationships (read: legal marriage) and the possible procreation of children increases the incedence of unintended pregnancy.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you that the invention of birth control completely changed everything when it comes to sex. Prior to birth control any sexual relation put women at risk for pregnancy and thus it was impossible for them to be sexually liberated without major consequence.

I'm sure if birth control and abortion disappeared completely as options women would eventually be forced back to that era where they were once again extremely careful about sex.

But as a woman I don't believe women should have to give up their sexual liberation.

Maybe if all women were covered from head to toe as they are in parts of the Arab world there would be less casual sex going on. But who the hell wants that?

Women should not be forced into situations where they aren't sexually liberated. However being liberated shouldn't mean being free from all "responsibility." Women should be able to use any method available to keep from getting pregnant. But once they are pregnant it's too late, in my opinion to avoid pregnancy.

The fact of the matter is birth control is highly effective. Women should be able to take advantage of that and women who don't wish to be pregnant should use birth control and condoms. And they should be taught that the combination is highly effective. That is empowering.

talloulou said:

I completely agree with you that the invention of birth control completely changed everything when it comes to sex. Prior to birth control any sexual relation put women at risk for pregnancy and thus it was impossible for them to be sexually liberated without major consequence.

Click to expand...

What exactly have women GAINED with this so called "sexual liberation" other than a few more orgasms?

I'm sure if birth control and abortion disappeared completely as options women would eventually be forced back to that era where they were once again extremely careful about sex.

Click to expand...

Aside from the slanted way you worded this...what is wrong with being careful about sex?

But as a woman I don't believe women should have to give up their sexual liberation.

Click to expand...

See above.

Maybe if all women were covered from head to toe as they are in parts of the Arab world there would be less casual sex going on. But who the hell wants that?

Click to expand...

c'mon talloulou...that's a red herring...and actually demeaning to the rational nature of human beings who can CHOOSE to act on impulses or not. If we all ran around NUDE, there would still be no excuse to be casual about sex.

Women should not be forced into situations where they aren't sexually liberated. However being liberated shouldn't mean being free from all "responsibility." Women should be able to use any method available to keep from getting pregnant. But once they are pregnant it's too late, in my opinion to avoid pregnancy.

Click to expand...

I'm still unsure about this "liberation" thing....but what is you position about when life begins? Are you one who believes it begins at conception, or at implantation?

That is empowering.

Click to expand...

I suppose that relates to the "liberation" thing I need some info on...please explain.

Felicity said:

... The social atmosphere that aims toward the acceptence/normalization of sexual activity seperate from committed relationships (read: legal marriage) and the possible procreation of children increases the incedence of unintended pregnancy.

Click to expand...

GARBAGE! A social atmosphere that aims toward the non-acceptance/non-approval of sexual activity outside of marriage has never stopped it from occurring. Such an atmosphere ensures that young people are unprepared to protect themselves when they do have sex, and inevitably they will have sex, and as a result the incidence of unintended pregnancy/STDs is just as great. That is why Abstinance Only sex education has failed dismally.

talloulou said:

There are some conservatives that would like to see contraceptives outlawed. But they are "extreme" and they certainly aren't the conservative majority. Not even among the religious in the US will you find a majority that has a problem with birth control.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I've read many stories about conservatives keeping contraceptive out of school, the conservatives banned federal funding of contraceptives, etc. I don't think the element that holds those positions -- the religious right, is nearly so mucha mintory among conservatives as you suggest.

However it is quite common to hear prochoicers proclaim again and again that birth control is ineffective.

Click to expand...

I think they'd all agree that any contraceptives is a heck of a lot more effective than none at all.

Cremaster77 said:

As I've said before, the fact that you don't see the difference between a housefly and a human speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

And your phrasing speaks volumes about your imprecision in describing an opponent's position. I'm pefectly aware that there are differences between human bodies and housefly bodies. I'm perfectly aware that there are similarities between them, too. What I am not aware of is the answer to this question: "Why does the mere body matter?" What makes one body inherently "better" than another? Heh, from an Evolutionary perspective, the "best" bodies around might be those of cockroaches. Been around for 300 million years or more, and expected to survive World War III, also. So, why don't you try being Objective for once, and describe why the human body (ignoring the mind), is more important/special/better/valuable/blahblahblah than a housefly body?

FutureIncoming said:

. Why isn't it obvious that laws are stupid, when they don't actually work? Perhaps you should look up the history surrounding the original Law, back in the early 1900s, that made heroin an illegal drug. England at the same time was considering a similar law, but instead they made it a prescription-only drug. By the 1960s we got to compare the long-term effects of the two laws: In New York City alone there were 100,000 heroin addicts; in all of England there were maybe 500. Which law was more stupid?

Click to expand...

Cremaster77 said:

This is the same stupid argument always made by pro-choice people which completely ignores the fact that society as deemed it governmental role to have laws. The fact that laws are broken does not mean those laws should not exist. Do people speed through school zones? YES. Do is happen often? YES. Does that mean that there should be no school zones and there should be no law prohibiting people from driving 80 MPH through those zones? That doesn't mean people still can't physically drive 80 MPH through that zone. It means that society has deemed it harmful to society to do so and therefore the government has a role in prohibiting it.

Click to expand...

ALMOST, but not quite. The government's role in this vein is to try to control or reduce something that is perceived to be a problem. Laws are a normal way to attempt this, but if some particular Law A doesn't achieve an intended goal, while some other Law B can do better, then that is pretty good evidence that Law A isn't good enough, and possibly is outright stupid, and should be replaced. For your school-zone example, suppose that the Law decreed that the road passing by the school be constructed so roughly that any car going faster than 40MPH would start to shake itself to pieces: Do you think this would discourage the 80MPH speeders? Do you think it might actually encourage speeds of 25MPH? Do you think that if this notion happens to work better than the original law that merely posts a speed-limit sign, it nevertheless must be more stupid than the original law?

So, with respect to the abortion debate, is banning abortions the best possible way to prevent them? We already know it won't work well, thanks to History. So, what might work better? Consider that Nature doesn't care in the least about what humans think regarding when "adulthood" begins; Nature creates biological/reproductive adulthood with puberty. So, if this Natural Fact is legally recognized, then how about laws that make contraceptives more available to whoever wants them, no age-questions asked? If abortion is currently used as "birth control" about half the time, then wouldn't such a law reduce abortions by approximately half? And since most of the rest of abortions are done because of improper use or outright failures of other abortion methods, a law that specifies (1) better sex education about birth control techniques and their failure modes, and (2) research into more-effective methods, might be a good thing, also.

Cremaster77 said:

The Scientific Fact, as I have pointed out, is that humans are genetically different from other animals. The fact that you choose to ignore genetics is your own Prejudice.

Click to expand...

I don't ignore genetics at all. I'm just looking for a non-Prejudiced explanation of how or why a human body (ignoring the mind), is more important/special/better/valuable/blahblahblah than a housefly (or other animal) body. So far, you have offered nothing but self-admitted prejudice as an answer. Worthless for convincing an Objective person, that is.

Cremaster77 said:

But the genetics are the only steadfast scientific difference between humans and animals.

Click to expand...

FALSE. The average magnitude of our mental capabilities is also a very significant and scientifically measurable difference between humans and other animals. Furthermore, it doesn't bother me at all if, in the process of dividing human persons from human animals, some ordinary animals may deserve to be granted person status. Perhaps this one? If the notion bothers you, than that's just more of your prejudice showing. Genetics is not a good/generic way to identifiy persons of all possible types, as different from animals of all possible types. Certainly not when some of those possible persons might be Artificial Intelligences!

Cremaster77 said:

Once you start granting personhood to some humans and not other, you exhibit folly to a degree that to me is stunning that you do not see.

Click to expand...

FALSE. The folly is to use an arbitrary and non-Objective distinguishment method. That is what has always been tried before in History, and that is what has always failed spectacularly. But Scientific Objective Measurements can lead us to a different path altogether. Animals that are considered to be reasonably smart, like pigs or dolphins, have "intellects" of a measurable magnitude. Why, why, why should human intellects of lesser magnitude be declared to be persons? What are those humans going to be able to do, at that level of intellect, that the culture will value, that pigs or dolphins or chimps or other smart animals can't do (or actually can do, and do better)?

Cremaster77 said:

I guess there will always be fools in this world who think they know better than those who came before them who tried the exact same thing they are trying and failed, I just never thought I would be talking to one on the Internet.

Click to expand...

You aren't, because I'm not suggesting the exact same thing that has been tried and failed in the past. For example, slavery fails because slaves rebel. What human fetus or newborn is going to rebel, eh? What human fetus or newborn is going to start an uprising because of discrimination? What human fetus or newborn is secretly going to work to undermine or sabotage Official Policy against them? None, none, and none. Because they are indeed animals in Measurable Scientific Fact, not persons.

Cremaster77 said:

you are foolhardy and arrogant

Click to expand...

Nope. As just described, there is no risk to Society from human fetuses and newborns, if they are declared to be non-persons. And your self-admitted prejudice is a far more arrogant thing, than non-prejudice ever is.

Cremaster77 said:

How is equating humans to houseflies different that what the Nazis did?

Click to expand...

The Nazis ignored the capabilities of existing person-class human minds. My comparison was specifically about bodies, and secondarily (not well specified, I admit) about bodies that don't have person-class minds --and if they don't exist, why are they a factor?

Cremaster77 said:

{{you have made}} the assumption is that all unwanted children are unwanted fetus. That is simply not the case.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of another message where you've written more about this. I've addressed part of it in #233 of this Thread, and will address the rest in the other Thread.