South Dakota bans abortions

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Ok, now seeing these numbers this high, does this change what anyone thinks on the issue? I am completely floored that 30% of canadian women will get an abortion in their lifetime. I had no idea it was that high. I am now even moreso anti-abortion and pro-taking resposibility for what you did.

Ah the good old scale arguement.
I find it interesting when people change a point of view based on numbers.
Like abortion is okay if only 3% of people are doing it, but if 30% are doing it it is wrong. Not saying this is your standpoint, but why is it that you are more against it now that you see that it is a larger scale than you think.
If it is an issue of taking lives, why is it worse to take 10 lives vs 100 lives, seems to me scale should not be an issue in a moral debate.

[FireFly]

I think it's because the scale reflects just how often it is used for birth control rather than to prevent complications for the mother or baby. If 3% are having abortions, those 3% are likely doing it to save their own lives. If 30% are doing it, it's likely that quite a few are doing it as a form of birth control. Even if only 10% are doing it for birth control, and 20% are doing it out of complications, 10% of women using abortion as birth control is a pretty high stat.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Sooo...by looking at this thread, we have had an extreme multitude of responses, which is to be expected.

Each response has touched on morality.

So my question is this...if it is such a moral decision, why not let the specific people decide? Its your decision to make. What's wrong with that?

I hadn't heard that we perfected understanding fetal communication?

[Cube Inmate]

We should outlaw abstinence! All of those little sperm and ova are potential life forms, and should therefore be given every right of a human being. It's unconstitutional to keep them apart...to keep them from being all they can be.

Hysterectomies should be outlawed too...it's against God's will to remove such an integral part of the human being...who are WE, the owners of the bodies, to decide what to do with them!?!

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by mbrown

I hadn't heard that we perfected understanding fetal communication?

Even if we had I doubt a being that has not yet developed cognitive abilities would have much to say on the matter...

[mbrown]

I'm not for banning abortion, but some legislation should be done on it. I'd be in favour of allowing abortion with some restrictions on:
Late term abortions. Abortions because the fetus is not the 'right' sex. Multiple abortions for the same person.
I also think only medical necessary abortions should be paid for by taxpayers. Anything else should not be.

I do not think that this makes me a pro life radical by any means.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by mbrown

I hadn't heard that we perfected understanding fetal communication?

That's not the point.

Each person in this thread has had a different view point on the issue. Although no one can truly know what they would do until faced with the actual situation, people are going to make decisions. They live with whatever the consequences of that decision may be. But in this case, its their choice...not yours.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

That's not the point.

Each person in this thread has had a different view point on the issue. Although no one can truly know what they would do until faced with the actual situation, people are going to make decisions. They live with whatever the consequences of that decision may be. But in this case, its their choice...not yours.

you are trying to pigeon hole me. read my opinion above.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

yes i am a vegetarian.

Somehow, that fits...

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

When do YOU consider it alive?

I already answered that question. I consider it to be brain activity.

I consider a fetus in the womb to be similar to someone on life support. They aren't doing much of anything for themselves and are totally dependent on someone else. If they can still think / respond intelligently (not just reactions to pressure), then I consider them to still be alive. I don't know if anyone can really pinpoint when that stage of development is.

Abortion still needs to be an option. There does need to be rules on it though (eg: no late term abortions).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I am now even moreso anti-abortion and pro-taking resposibility for what you did.

Those are 2 totally different subjects and very much independent.

You're making it sound like the decision to have an abortion is the same as taking a bill and throwing it into the garbage, or going to have blood taken for a blood test. Perhaps, for some, it is that easy.. but that is BY FAR the exception and not the rule.

For most people (women and men), knowing that the woman is pregnant is a major thing. They deliberate for hours/days on end about how that will impact their life, what it means to them, etc.

They know what they did and the results of it, and are now taking responsibility. If that means that they'll keep the kid, if that means they'll put it up for adoption, if that means they'll get an abortion, if that means they'll use a coat-hanger.. whatever. They're making a conscious major decision which means a lot to them.

Don't dismiss it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by mbrown

I'm not for banning abortion, but some legislation should be done on it. I'd be in favour of allowing abortion with some restrictions on:
Late term abortions. Abortions because the fetus is not the 'right' sex. Multiple abortions for the same person.
I also think only medical necessary abortions should be paid for by taxpayers. Anything else should not be.

I do not think that this makes me a pro life radical by any means.

I agree with your stance, to a certain extent.

In fact, I don't think that makes you pro-life at all, even though you may consider yourself to be. I consider you to be pro-choice, with some limits on the choices.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the "Multiple abortions for the same person" part... but the rest I'd agree with you very much.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Even if we had I doubt a being that has not yet developed cognitive abilities would have much to say on the matter...

Similar to a newborn?

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I agree with your stance, to a certain extent.

In fact, I don't think that makes you pro-life at all, even though you may consider yourself to be. I consider you to be pro-choice, with some limits on the choices.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the "Multiple abortions for the same person" part... but the rest I'd agree with you very much.

I've heard of people on their 8th abortion. Dr's shoudl be able to say no to that after.. I don;t know. I guess some will always abuse the system.

And yes, I guess I'm not really pro-life, but I am against Canada having no legislation on abortion at all and when anyone even mentions makign abortion legislation, the pro-choice people label them all sorts of things.

my take on it anyways.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ah the good old scale arguement.
I find it interesting when people change a point of view based on numbers.
Like abortion is okay if only 3% of people are doing it, but if 30% are doing it it is wrong. Not saying this is your standpoint, but why is it that you are more against it now that you see that it is a larger scale than you think.
If it is an issue of taking lives, why is it worse to take 10 lives vs 100 lives, seems to me scale should not be an issue in a moral debate.

I was bringing up a VERY valid point. Someone earlier in the thread argued that abortions are fine because not that many kids are dieing compared to sweatshops so, why bother. Well there are certainally more babies being aborted than I (and probably most people here) thought. This complerely shatters his scale argument (which again, read the thread -- I said was invalid anyway)

Also, as firefly points out, the commonness of these abortion completely throws into question the reasons for getting them done.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm not sure a website sponsored by "Priests for Life" isn't trying to promote their own agenda. I looked up the stats as they advise ([size=2]1998-2002: Go to www.statcan.ca and search for the word abortion for various statistics), and I find this which says in 2002 there were 13.0 induced abortions / 1000 women.

I missed that, thanks for the correction.

I find abortion distasteful but I still feel, in the end , it's the woman's decision and although the fetus becomes more humanlike the closer to term, it's still not alive until it draws it's first breath.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I was bringing up a VERY valid point. Someone earlier in the thread argued that abortions are fine because not that many kids are dieing compared to sweatshops so, why bother. Well there are certainally more babies being aborted than I (and probably most people here) thought. This complerely shatters his scale argument (which again, read the thread -- I said was invalid anyway)

Also, as firefly points out, the commonness of these abortion completely throws into question the reasons for getting them done.

I wasn't trying to support or disprove anyone's point. I just find it odd that some people think scale has a place in moral arguements.
If they'll tolerate 3% of the population having abortions, why won't they tolerate 30%?

The point I'm making is that the number of abortions taking place shouldn't have any sway on whether you are against it or not. Eitehr you believe it's okay to kill a fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it, or it isn't. The number of times that decision is made shouldn't affect what the answer is.

For instance, if you ask me if it's okay to steal a car, I'm going to give you the same answer whether 1 car is stolen a day or if 1000 are.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I already answered that question. I consider it to be brain activity.

I consider a fetus in the womb to be similar to someone on life support. They aren't doing much of anything for themselves and are totally dependent on someone else. If they can still think / respond intelligently (not just reactions to pressure), then I consider them to still be alive. I don't know if anyone can really pinpoint when that stage of development is.

First off if being alive means being able to respond intelligently and being able to think.... sorry but most people can be morally killed then

seriously though...

under 2 months babies don't respond to any stimuli more than they do in the womb.

about 3-4 months is when they start being able to recognize and react to people's faces and remember who's a stranger and who their mother is

most people that study child development say that the baby will develop a concept of self and realize they are a seperate entity from their mother at about 5 months.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Thank god someone other than me brings this up (I had this in my post a little above yours as well as a couple other points relating to it). Its always about women's rights and women's right to choose. What about men's rights? We need EQUAL rights on this issue (if we absolutely have to keep abortions), not women's rights!

So as soon as the baby leaves the mothers womb....she has no burdens for the rest of her life. You're speaking like once the birth is over, its only the man's responsibilty for the next 18 years. I can tell you that raising a child is a lot more difficult, time consuming and expensive than 18 years of child subsidizing. Grow up.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

First off if being alive means being able to respond intelligently and being able to think.... sorry but most people can be morally killed then

seriously though...

under 2 months babies don't respond to any stimuli more than they do in the womb.

about 3-4 months is when they start being able to recognize and react to people's faces and remember who's a stranger and who their mother is

most people that study child development say that the baby will develop a concept of self and realize they are a seperate entity from their mother at about 5 months.

Under two months, eh. Just try covering a babies mouth and nose and see if they respond. [not that I suggest any of these] Try not feeding them for a while and see if they respond. Try not changing them and see if they respond. Have you ever had a child?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Under two months, eh. Just try covering a babies mouth and nose and see if they respond. [not that I suggest any of these] Try not feeding them for a while and see if they respond. Try not changing them and see if they respond. Have you ever had a child?

that's about the level of response you get when they're in the womb.
poke at a mother's stomach, it'll respond
talk to it, it'll respond
set off an air horn, it'll respond

it still responds but what constitutes an intelligent response in that poster's opinion?

also up until ~1 year the baby can't feed itself let alone get its own food. so its still completely dependant.

I'm just challenging people to think about when its justified to kill somebody.