Abortion

[lolDeath]

Ocelot, when you know little to nothing about a subject and then someone goes and gives an answer to every question you put out, you should -really- look into it before you reply.

[Phoenix Wright]

Ocelot, when you know little to nothing about a subject and then someone goes and gives an answer to every question you put out, you should -really- look into it before you reply.

You go ahead and answer them then.

[lolDeath]

I refuse to go down this road, it takes more typing than I feel like doing and I don't care enough about explaining it to people who can easily use Google. I'm just saying, you should learn a bit more before you disagree with someone who is able to answer you well.

[Phoenix Wright]

I refuse to go down this road, it takes more typing than I feel like doing and I don't care enough about explaining it to people who can easily use Google. I'm just saying, you should learn a bit more before you disagree with someone who is able to answer you well.

The answer(s) don't make much sense to me. Especially when I asked why other animals evolved like we do.

On second thought, the reason why we don't repair the brain makes sense to me. Never mind that one Nintenlord.

On a third thought, just leave it alone, I'll look into it, and leave my comments to myself.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Citrusman

[Esau of Isaac]

Of course not. I never said that there was anything wrong with using logic, I said that logic isn't the only thing that should be considered in an issue like abortion. The person I responded to, said something along the lines of "religious beliefs should not be brought into a secular discussion, and only facts and logic should have any relelvance". I'm saying, that in an issue like this, emotional feelings should not be ruled out.

Bringing religion into an argument of logic and reasoning is like bringing a soccer ball to a game of basketball; you're using the wrong tools, here.

Fallacious? Hell no, cuz fallacious means false and has no relevance to it right?

A fallacy is a line of logic that lacks reasoning and can be demonstrated as such.

How can we be logical when we're deciding whether or not a potential infant gets to live? We value that human life, we love that human life contained within the stomach of a woman, and so, we're willing to say all sorts of things, like "something that valuable should not have to be killed just because a mother was too irresponsible to stop it", or "it should be put into an orphanage".

The logic is fallacious in several ways. Human life isn't intrinsically valuable, and if you actually applied the logic that you use in other situations involving unthinking life, this discussion would be realized as without any logical merit. Allow me to try to illustrate:

A man is caught in a horribly debilitating car crash. He is wheeled into the ER in a mangled heap, his entire body seeming as though it may very well explode from the pain. The doctors diagnose him, and quickly find that his injuries are grievous, and he is informed that he will have to have his legs amputated.

Hours later, both woozy and confused, the man awakes to find that his legs have been removed. Is he still a person? One would very likely answer yes, unless they believe that any and all amputees are less people, so let us continue:

The man seems to be fine, but it is found a day later that his injuries were far more grievous than originally believed. He is brought under the knife again, and this time his arms are completely removed. Is this man still a person, or has he irrevocably lost personhood? Again, most people would say he is indeed still a person.

The man, now having lost both his limbs, is hardly in a good mood. Nevertheless, he finds that he will manage. After all, he is still quite living. His family is happy to see him, and converses with him on world events that have occurred while he has been recuperating.

Suddenly, the man seems to be having some sort of a fit. Doctors calm him, and then find that this injury he has sustained is incredibly dangerous. So they decide that they shall finally remove this man's head from his torso and place it in a tank.

Hours pass, and the plan goes off without a hitch. The man's head is removed, but he yet lives. He is breathing, feeling, and thinking, every bit as much as he was before his accident. He lives on, and talks to his family daily. Is this man still a person, or did he lose it along the way?

Let us look at the pieces left behind, however. His arms, legs, and even his torso have been strapped into machines. Blood flows through them comfortably, his heart beats, and his lungs expand and contract. They are all in very much working order, living and healthy. The only thing that they are missing is a head. Are these dismembered arms and legs, this headless torso, all very much alive, people? Why or why not?

Don't you understand why the Pro-Life supporters try to stop abortion anyway they can? They're trying to find a way to rescue that unborn baby. And it's an awful thing, to know that some pure, completely innocent baby, who has not even had a chance to do anything to be ashamed of, has to be slain because their mother screwed them over by being irresponsible.

Yeah, I understand the Pro-Life. They value the fetus as a person and are fine with keeping a woman prisoner within their own body because they want to save what they illogically find a person. I find that wrong and unfair to the mother.

So to say that emotion should be ruled out (as you strongly imply), is like saying that your own humanity should be ruled out when your trying to decide whether to make slaves out of the villagers of your own kingdom. From a purely logical stand point, sure. They can't tell you that they don't want to, you don't even have to pay them for anything, your army is stopping them from revolting, and you get more food, drink, and moola!!

I'm not saying that emotion is useless in reasonable thought, I am saying that appeals to emotion are fallacious in a debate over which issues are more logical.

Really? Cuz last I checked that was called "Intelligent Design", now that theory is an absolute joke! But that's not what creationism is, according to "Dictionary.com", it refers to the Genesis, and describes where God created everything.

Jesus Harold Christ.

Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed in the worst disguise the world has ever known.

Okey doke, sounds like a challenge, but just one question before I start, the Hadean eon was known as the eon of the very first rocks. Now, on the third day of the Genesis, God said he created the dry land. Would you count the rocks as part of the dry land?

I would, but since he created the land after the oceans, you've already lost.

Also, how long does it take to create a star assuming everything that is needed to make a star is just beginning to create it?

I am not sure I understand the question.

Well, one thing to understand is that the whole "seven days" concept may be very misleading to a literal thinker. To God, a "day" could mean like a thousand or a million years (he is an immortal after all). And I don't really think that he did it with one simple mental command, I think he had to literally spend millions of years reshaping the world, laying down the laws it is governed by, and trying to build a perfect world. Remember, on the seventh day, he rested, not because he was tired or anything, but because he though that he had done enough, and it was time to sit back and enjoy his work. He did put a heck of a lot of careful thought into the world after all.

Not possible. The Earth and the Heavens were constructed on the first day, meaning that if it were speaking of reality, one day would have to be at least ten billion years. Were this true, the Universe would be at least seventy billion years old.

Such is not so.

If we did evolve from monkeys, why are they still here? -That is a serious question

Because we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

If humans really are at the top of the food chain, is there a reason why NO OTHER animal shows signs of evolving, even remotely like a human?

Are you trying to ask why nothing is evolving to look like a human if we're the best?

The answer is that we're not the best at anything other than our intelligence. Were it not for that, we would not be incredibly dominant.

Why do we show no signs of evolving farther? I mean, our bodies are wonderful, but they could be better, right? The only organ to completely repair itself is the liver. Why not the heart, or BRAIN?

The brain does heal itself over time. It is a misconception that brain cells are lost forever once one is gone.

And evolution of the magnitude you are speaking of takes quite a long time. You're not ever going to see the human race up and evolve in such a short amount of time, that would in fact disprove the theory.

Why do humans only use 7-10% of their brain? Or is that just a myth, as I've heard that too.

That's a myth, and an annoying one at that. It's a misconception based on the fact that while you use all parts of your brain, you don't use all of them at the same time for every given situation. For example, laying on a table and breathing comfortably while having your brain analyzed doesn't require every part of your brain to be working in tandem.

And then there's the fact that modern science has stopped human evolution since there is little to none "survival of the fittest" going on around here where human lives are at stake.

No, evolution has not stopped. The pressures have only changed.

Because using more of our brains would just use absurd amounts of our limited energy resources and would therefore be detrimental for us in the struggle for survival.

Consider that the brain is five percent of the brain's body weight but consumes over twenty percent of all energy that is taken in. Were this true, would this not render the brain itself to be one of the most inefficient systems that has ever been produced?

I don't agree with any of that. The birds are supposedly evolved dinosaurs, thus disproving the theory that dinosaurs became instinct.

...What?

There are no more dinosaurs, which means there should be no more monkeys. We are far superior to monkeys, in that, they should have evolved the exact same as us, not branching off.

Why would they have evolved the same as us?

I'm genuinely interested as to how you view the theory of evolution, here; because you're making no sense at all.

@Esau: Dude, what are you talking about? That IS important to everything! All you've been saying basically is that the ones who have been raped deserve to have an abortion, when VIRTUALLY NONE are pregnant that way.

They're not important at all because you haven't described why a fetus is intrinsically deserving to continue living.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[FionordeQuester]

Bringing religion into an argument of logic and reasoning is like bringing a soccer ball to a game of basketball; you're using the wrong tools, here.

Well, your right about that. But I never tried to use religion to support my points, as a matter of fact, I never even said anything about abortion.

A fallacy is a line of logic that lacks reasoning and can be demonstrated as such.

But I didn't ask for the meaning of fallacy, I asked for the meaning of fallacious! ....Ok, that was a joke, don't worry.

The logic is fallacious in several ways. Human life isn't intrinsically valuable, and if you actually applied the logic that you use in other situations involving unthinking life, this discussion would be realized as without any logical merit. Allow me to try to illustrate:

Ok, ok, bad choice of words. What I meant was that it's near impossible to be completely logical when opposing Abortion. Listen, when constructing the typical Pro Life argument, first there's the emotional appeal ("This wouldn't be happening if she had been more responsible", or "If this passes, we're gonna have to kill an innocent baby!", or "Why should the baby get hosed for something the mother did?"). And then there's the logical appeal ("And besides, it's a stupid idea anyways, she can always just send him to an orphanage!"). See? Logic and emotion, for a debate that involves both logic and emotion!

And uh...no, I think your wrong, I think human life is always valuable by it's very nature, although it can easily be ruined should someone choose to use it for sin. At the very least it's very much worth it for that living human head to wait for techonology to advance to the point where he might get a robotic body, and it's still worth staying alive for friends, relatives, and family. I think so anyways, that's what I'd do. You saying you'd rather die than be a floating head in a water container?

Yeah, I understand the Pro-Life. They value the fetus as a person and are fine with keeping a woman prisoner within their own body because they want to save what they illogically find a person. I find that wrong and unfair to the mother.

Ok, tell me, what exactly is defined as "prisoner in her own body"? The baby isn't even a part of her body, it's a vessel within her body that's attached to her by its umbilical cord, and surrounded by some sort of liquidy sac.

Now, I realize that she has to go through a hell of a lot of pain giving birth to the child. Is that what you mean by "prisoner in her own body"? Sheesh, you make it sound like Pro-Life people are forcing her through some sort of traumatic experience <_< Painful? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Uncomfortable? Yes. Stressful? Probably. But tramautic? It shouldn't be. Sure, I guess conception can be somewhat traumatic during the time of conception, due to how painful it is, but nothing everlasting. After that, she dumps the baby at an orphanage, and BAM!, she can get on with her life right?

I may sound somewhat harsh, but here in America, we have the freedom to choose what decisions we make. If you wanna have sex with no condom, your allowed. And, as people who are free to choose what decisions we make, we are also free to deal with the consequences of the decisions we make. And if that irresponsible lady ever have to unwillingly give birth, well, that's her fault. I'm sorry to say it, but that's the truth.

Ok, so you think "No Abortion" is wrong and unfair to the mother. I gotchya. So let me ask you this. Do you think "Abortion" is any less unfair or wrong to the unborn child (who has a brain) than "No Abortion" is to the mother?

I'm not saying that emotion is useless in reasonable thought, I am saying that appeals to emotion are fallacious in a debate over which issues are more logical.

Ah, but we're not arguing about what kind of issues are logical, are we? I sure don't remember doing so.

Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed in the worst disguise the world has ever known.

That's only because the ones who came up with Intelligent Design are trying to make it something it's not, a scientific theory.

I would, but since he created the land after the oceans, you've already lost.

No I haven't, are you trying to say that the Earth had land before there was ocean?

I am not sure I understand the question.

Eh, nevermind.

Not possible. The Earth and the Heavens were constructed on the first day, meaning that if it were speaking of reality, one day would have to be at least ten billion years. Were this true, the Universe would be at least seventy billion years old.

Not so, back then, the "Earth" didn't even have form, the Earth was one giant, formless thing. How would that make our universe ten billion years old? I remember the Earths rock only being around 4.6 billion years old or something like that, this is describing the creation of the Earth

Because we did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

So what, monkeys are a sister species to us?

That's a myth, and an annoying one at that. It's a misconception based on the fact that while you use all parts of your brain, you don't use all of them at the same time for every given situation. For example, laying on a table and breathing comfortably while having your brain analyzed doesn't require every part of your brain to be working in tandem.

Huh, interesting, I never knew that!

The answer is that we're not the best at anything other than our intelligence. Were it not for that, we would not be incredibly dominant.

That's right, he's right ya know. We're a damn good Jack of All Trades though!!

Edited November 22, 2008 by FionordeQuester

[FionordeQuester]

But on topic, can we please stop using this thread to argue about this? Let's just create another topic for this argument if we have to, ok?

[Meteor]

Did we solve it yet?

Edited November 23, 2008 by Meteor

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, your right about that. But I never tried to use religion to support my points, as a matter of fact, I never even said anything about abortion.

You used religion in this topic multiple times.

And are you trying to defend yourself in an argument based on abortion that you never even said anything about abortion? That's odd.

Ok, ok, bad choice of words. What I meant was that it's near impossible to be completely logical when opposing Abortion. Listen, when constructing the typical Pro Life argument, first there's the emotional appeal ("This wouldn't be happening if she had been more responsible", or "If this passes, we're gonna have to kill an innocent baby!", or "Why should the baby get hosed for something the mother did?"). And then there's the logical appeal ("And besides, it's a stupid idea anyways, she can always just send him to an orphanage!"). See? Logic and emotion, for a debate that involves both logic and emotion!

The problem being that the lines of logic are based almost completely off of that emotion, without utilizing the logic that they very lightly employed elsewhere.

And uh...no, I think your wrong, I think human life is always valuable by it's very nature, although it can easily be ruined should someone choose to use it for sin.

Never used religion in your arguments, eh?

Do you believe that all human life intrinsically deserves to live? Because if so, you're being quite ridiculous.

At the very least it's very much worth it for that living human head to wait for techonology to advance to the point where he might get a robotic body, and it's still worth staying alive for friends, relatives, and family. I think so anyways, that's what I'd do. You saying you'd rather die than be a floating head in a water container?

...No. I never said this once. I am asking you whether the man in the tank, being only a floating head, is a person.

Ok, tell me, what exactly is defined as "prisoner in her own body"? The baby isn't even a part of her body, it's a vessel within her body that's attached to her by its umbilical cord, and surrounded by some sort of liquidy sac.

She cannot opt to remove what she finds an unwelcome entity within her own body. This is what being a prisoner in her own body means.

What, you think the baby is in some kind of pocket dimension and doesn't live in the mother's body?

Now, I realize that she has to go through a hell of a lot of pain giving birth to the child. Is that what you mean by "prisoner in her own body"? Sheesh, you make it sound like Pro-Life people are forcing her through some sort of traumatic experience dry.gif Painful? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Uncomfortable? Yes. Stressful? Probably. But tramautic? It shouldn't be.

Being forced by the law to hold a child for nine months and then birth it, when you don't want it to happen, can be horribly traumatic.

I may sound somewhat harsh, but here in America, we have the freedom to choose what decisions we make. If you wanna have sex with no condom, your allowed. And, as people who are free to choose what decisions we make, we are also free to deal with the consequences of the decisions we make. And if that irresponsible lady ever have to unwillingly give birth, well, that's her fault. I'm sorry to say it, but that's the truth.

No, it's not necessarily her fault. And that you would handwave away choice after just harping on about its value is extraordinarily ridiculous. You don't speak of the sanctity of choice and then murder it in your following sentence. Either the woman should have the choice to abort the child, or she shouldn't.

Ok, so you think "No Abortion" is wrong and unfair to the mother. I gotchya. So let me ask you this. Do you think "Abortion" is any less unfair or wrong to the unborn child (who has a brain) than "No Abortion" is to the mother?

I believe I will counter with "There is no fairness for a being that lacks any form of thought process or personhood, and therefore attempting to aske me with the conclusion that it is fundamentally deserving of rights is an unfair line of questioning by its very nature."

In other words, do I ask the opinion of my tonsils before I remove them? No, because they're unthinking and unfeeling.

Ah, but we're not arguing about what kind of issues are logical, are we? I sure don't remember doing so.

Uh...yes we are. Any and all debates are based on casting the opponents' points into doubt and showing that yours are more logical, thereby becoming the victor of the competition. Gaining superiority and showing a foe's argument to be lacking to the onlookers is the primary objective of any debate. That includes this one.

That's only because the ones who came up with Intelligent Design are trying to make it something it's not, a scientific theory.

Which is why it utterly fails in the first place.

No I haven't, are you trying to say that the Earth had land before there was ocean?

That is exactly what I am trying to say, and in addition that the Sun was in existence quite some time before oceans formed at all.

So unless you're attempting to argue that the Earth started as a large ball of water and grew land, and without a Sun in the first place (if you attempt to argue such a point, I may explode from the ridiculousness), you're wrong. Factually.

Not so, back then, the "Earth" didn't even have form, the Earth was one giant, formless thing. How would that make our universe ten billion years old? I remember the Earths rock only being around 4.6 billion years old or something like that, this is describing the creation of the Earth

That was the formation of the Earth. Earth did not form as it is today; it was barren and lifeless when it first began. And the book outright says that the Earth has been formed then, on the first day; it doesn't matter whether it says that it is equipped as today, that means that it marks the beginning of Earth, which was around four billion years ago, and around fourteen billion years after the singularity of space and time, meaning that the first day could have been no less than ten billion years ago. Which then outright says that the Universe must be at least seventy billion years ago.

So what, monkeys are a sister species to us?

More like a cousin. But yes, if you trace it back, there is a point in which our human ancestors diverged from modern monkeys' ancestors.

But on topic, can we please stop using this thread to argue about this? Let's just create another topic for this argument if we have to, ok?

What, evolution? If you make a thread, I am willing to participate.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Debating evolution is like debating lunar cycles.

[lolDeath]

They both happen?

[bunny: spider bitten]

No. If someone denies either, it's not worth arguing; the best thing to tell them is good night.

[FionordeQuester]

The problem being that the lines of logic are based almost completely off of that emotion, without utilizing the logic that they very lightly employed elsewhere.

Could you explain please?

Never used religion in your arguments, eh?

Not to defend my points (not that I remember anyways), though I did say how my decision was influenced by religion.

Do you believe that all human life intrinsically deserves to live? Because if so, you're being quite ridiculous.

Once again, bad choice of words? Why do you think I mentioned how easily ruined it is by a sinner?

...No. I never said this once. I am asking you whether the man in the tank, being only a floating head, is a person.

Of course he is.

She cannot opt to remove what she finds an unwelcome entity within her own body. This is what being a prisoner in her own body means.

Huh, than that's an exaggeration if I ever saw one. And besides, that's her fault (if she was not raped/in danger of dying) that that "unwelcome entity" is in her body. That's like saying it's not the shephards fault that a wolf came inside his backyard and ate his sheep because he forgot to lock the doors. Or that it's not a bodyguards fault that his client got killed because he decided he'd rather fly to Hawaii and spend a vacation there instead of guarding his client. It was totally her fault.

What, you think the baby is in some kind of pocket dimension and doesn't live in the mother's body?

No, but it's not like it's just another organ either.

Being forced by the law to hold a child for nine months and then birth it, when you don't want it to happen, can be horribly traumatic.

Really? Is conception really that painful?

No, it's not necessarily her fault. And that you would handwave away choice after just harping on about its value is extraordinarily ridiculous. You don't speak of the sanctity of choice and then murder it in your following sentence. Either the woman should have the choice to abort the child, or she shouldn't.

Yes it is. Ok, ok, if we really want to get technical, it's her and her lovers fault. But besides that, it's totally her fault for deciding to have sex in the first place.

And I did not "handwave away choice after harping on its values". Reread a little more closely will you? I said that here in America, we have the choice to make foolish decisions and then suffer the consequences of those foolish decisions. Sheesh.

I believe I will counter with "There is no fairness for a being that lacks any form of thought process or personhood, and therefore attempting to aske me with the conclusion that it is fundamentally deserving of rights is an unfair line of questioning by its very nature."

Yes, your right, if it doesn't have a brain yet. If it does have a brain at that point, no, it's totally another person, just like you or me. Once it has a brain, then whether you think so or not, it is in fact living. It just needs a helluva lot of life support from his/her mother is all. So let me repeat the question. Do you think "Abortion" is any less unfair or wrong to the unborn child (who has a brain) than "No Abortion" is to the mother?

In other words, do I ask the opinion of my tonsils before I remove them? No, because they're unthinking and unfeeling.

Yes, because they have no brain to think or feel with. Do babies, at any point before birth, have any brain? If so, which point?

Uh...yes we are. Any and all debates are based on casting the opponents' points into doubt and showing that yours are more logical, thereby becoming the victor of the competition. Gaining superiority and showing a foe's argument to be lacking to the onlookers is the primary objective of any debate. That includes this one.

Yes, yes, I know that. But you said "discussing which issues are logical". Just how does that have anything to do with the issue we're talking about right now, which is abortion? We're already discussing the issue of abortion, so why are we trying to talk about "what kind of issues are logical", when we're already arguing about the issue of abortion? If I was interested in finding out what kind of issues are logical to talk about, and what kind of issues are not, I'd have argued that a long time ago. But I'm not, I'm interested in arguing the issue of abortion instead of arguing about whether the issue of abortion is a logical issue to talk about or not.

Which is why it utterly fails in the first place.

Yes, that's exactly why Intelligent Design is stupid. Your right.

That is exactly what I am trying to say, and in addition that the Sun was in existence quite some time before oceans formed at all.

That's assuming that oceans really are what formed first. Willing to prove it?

So unless you're attempting to argue that the Earth started as a large ball of water and grew land, and without a Sun in the first place (if you attempt to argue such a point, I may explode from the ridiculousness), you're wrong. Factually.

The earth wasn't a "large ball of water", it was formless at first. Like I said though, how exactly is it impossible that the water came before there was Earth?

That was the formation of the Earth. Earth did not form as it is today; it was barren and lifeless when it first began. And the book outright says that the Earth has been formed then, on the first day; it doesn't matter whether it says that it is equipped as today, that means that it marks the beginning of Earth, which was around four billion years ago, and around fourteen billion years after the singularity of space and time, meaning that the first day could have been no less than ten billion years ago. Which then outright says that the Universe must be at least seventy billion years ago.

Right, and how do you know that? How exactly do you know that the Earth was barren and lifeless before it had water?

What, evolution? If you make a thread, I am willing to participate.

Sigh...fine, if that's what it's going to take to get this back on topic, fine. But the thread title isn't going to be "Evolution", it's going to be "Fionor vs. Esau". Cuz this is between you and me, I don't want other people interfering and prolonging this debate, and I just want to end this already.

Edited November 24, 2008 by FionordeQuester

[Crystal Shards]

Huh, than that's an exaggeration if I ever saw one. And besides, that's her fault (if she was not raped/in danger of dying) that that "unwelcome entity" is in her body. That's like saying it's not the shephards fault that a wolf came inside his backyard and ate his sheep because he forgot to lock the doors. Or that it's not a bodyguards fault that his client got killed because he decided he'd rather fly to Hawaii and spend a vacation there instead of guarding his client. It was totally her fault.

Is it her fault when the 99% effective contraception given to her by her doctor fails? Is it her fault if she hasn't been educated enough in safe sex? Or how about when she is not raped, but pressured very heavily by the man? Is it her fault if she has psychological problems that affect her decision-making processes?

Really? Is conception really that painful?

How is being forced, against her will, to carry a child to term (that's nine months of having something in you that you don't want) not traumatic? If you wouldn't force someone to have an abortion you shouldn't be in favor of forcing a woman to have a child. The point is choice.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Meteor]

Is it her fault when the 99% effective contraception given to her by her doctor fails?

Is it her fault if she hasn't been educated enough in safe sex?

Or how about when she is not raped, but pressured very heavily by the man?

Is it her fault if she has psychological problems that affect her decision-making processes?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

[Crystal Shards]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You have obviously never been put in a horrible situation.

[Meteor]

That horrible situation being having sex?

[Crystal Shards]

That horrible situation being having sex?

No the horrible situation being that having faulty products/having faulty information/being heavily socially pressured (and a lot of people underestimate this; I'm a victim of it myself)/having psychological problems has caused you to be put in a situation that requires a heavy decision.

Not that any of this matters, because again it just depends on whether or not you are willing to give a woman the right to choose what she does with her body. Those against the CHOICE for abortion are not.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Meteor]

It's not faulty if the effectiveness is not guaranteed. It's not so much faulty information as a lack of it. However, ignorance is not an excuse. Peer pressure? If someone can't make his/her own decisions, how is that person deserving of choice in the first place? Someone with psychological problems is going to be aware of this before the fact. Why put yourself in a situation you already know you can't handle?

[FionordeQuester]

Is it her fault when the 99% effective contraception given to her by her doctor fails? Is it her fault if she hasn't been educated enough in safe sex?

Not if he didn't try to warn her about the possibility

Is it her fault if she hasn't been educated enough in safe sex?

Yes, she still should've known that she could have a baby because of sex. And don't use the "she didn't know sex would make a baby process", because if she truly didn't know that she could have a baby because of it, she probably doesn't even know what sex is in the first place. That's my take anyways.

Or how about when she is not raped, but pressured very heavily by the man?

Yes. She still had a choice in the matter, she still could've stopped him, and the choice was still up to her.

Is it her fault if she has psychological problems that affect her decision-making processes?

Hell no! It's the mans fault.

How is being forced, against her will, to carry a child to term (that's nine months of having something in you that you don't want) not traumatic? If you wouldn't force someone to have an abortion you shouldn't be in favor of forcing a woman to have a child. The point is choice.

Because the only thing that's that bad is the conception. Other than that, it can't be that bad from what I've learned of the whole process. It sure doesn't sound traumatic. But hey, then again, I'm not a woman, so maybe it's different for women. I dunno, I sure wouldn't be traumatized.

Edited November 24, 2008 by FionordeQuester

[Crystal Shards]

It's not faulty if the effectiveness is not guaranteed. It's not so much faulty information as a lack of it. However, ignorance is not an excuse. Peer pressure? If someone can't make his/her own decisions, how is that person deserving of choice in the first place? Someone with psychological problems is going to be aware of this before the fact. Why put yourself in a situation you already know you can't handle?

Condoms and pills can still be made incorrectly.

You're telling me that if someone is affected by pressure that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions? Um, something must be wrong with you then because MANY of the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis result from social pressures like norms and the like.

Also, if you have a psychological problem, and I know this might be a stretch for some people who haven't studied psychology, but if you have a psychological problem, you don't necessarily know you have one.

But again all of this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that you have chosen not to let someone control their own body.

I dunno, I sure wouldn't be traumatized.

First, you have no way of knowing that. Secondly, we're not talking about normal pregnancies. We're talking about being forced to carry to term something you didn't want to begin with. Would you force a woman to have an abortion? There's nothing particularly traumatic about the actual procedure, but we know for many women who are forced to give up a child they want it does carry psychological aftereffects. The same goes for a forced pregnancy.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Meteor]

Condoms and pills can still be made incorrectly.

You're telling me that if someone is affected by pressure that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions? Um, something must be wrong with you then because MANY of the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis result from social pressures like norms and the like.

Also, if you have a psychological problem, and I know this might be a stretch for some people who haven't studied psychology, but if you have a psychological problem, you don't necessarily know you have one.

But again all of this is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that you have chosen not to let someone control their own body.

They don't cause pregnancy.

I'm saying that bending under social pressure is a pretty poor excuse for why you made a choice you regret. The one making the choice must take the blame.

Psychology is a largely unverifiable field. I guess I'll just surrender this point since there's no point in arguing whether or not it can affect someone so much, or if it even exists.

Abortion: baby has no choice. Life: mother has no choice. Then you have to decide whose choice counts for more.

[Crystal Shards]

No, but contraception is supposed to PREVENT pregnancy, and the stats they give you assume being used correctly and being made correctly. In other words the percentage success rate they give you assumes no fault on either the producer or user, and when a product fails because of the producer, it is not the user's fault.

The so-called "baby" (which you're using to imply that the fetus is a person and not a cluster of cells) doesn't need choice, because it's not a moral person. It is human, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a moral agent. Therefore, it would be best to side with the mother, whose needs have already been laid out by being a moral agent.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[FionordeQuester]

First, you have no way of knowing that.

Well no, of course not, I'm a man. But I don't think I would.

Secondly, we're not talking about normal pregnancies. We're talking about being forced to carry to term something you didn't want to begin with.

So what, they're traumatized because they don't feel like bearing him/her (if the baby has a brain)? Sheesh, you talk as if the baby is some kind of monster or something.

There's nothing particularly traumatic about the actual procedure, but we know for many women who are forced to give up a child they want it does carry psychological aftereffects.

Key word being forced to. They're not being forced to if it was their decision. And we also have women who believe that abortion is wrong.

The same goes for a forced pregnancy.

You have no way of knowing that.

[Meteor]

That's a risk that doesn't even have to be taken. There's no need for a parachute if you don't go skydiving.

If that is your main thesis for why a mother should be able to make a choice, then I agree with you.