Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

PostmodernProphet said:
and your bloodlust exposes you.....
Click to expand...

Not really. I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control but I'm not opposed to a woman's right to abort an unborn non-sentient, unconscious, unaware being. I am for women to choose as they wish to do with their own body. The problem with you is that you are so fanatical in your view you cannot even compartmentalize your thoughts in a logical manner. All it seems is you either listen to some right-wing information or you merely google your responses and find whatever appeals to your view. You're not even worth arguing over this subject.
 
Sun Devil said:
"In a 1996 study, researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina set out to determine the rape-related pregnancy rate in the United States. They estimated that about 5 percent of rape victims of reproductive age (12 to 45) become pregnant — a percentage that results in about 32,000 pregnancies each year.

"Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency," the researchers wrote. "It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence."

Furthermore, women who become pregnant as a result of rape do not always realize it right away. In the 1996 study, researchers found that 32 percent of the rape victims — or about 10,000 women — did not discover they were pregnant until they were in their second trimester."

See Reference:http://www.minnpost.com/second-opin...ncy-statistics-and-ignorance-some-politicians

"The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which estimated that more than 32,000 women experience a rape-related pregnancy each year. The report also concluded that 5% of rape victims become pregnant, which would mean that 640,000 rapes occur each year."

See Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/au...n-rape-and-pregnancy-are-complicated-20120822

XLVIII DOMINATORS next time you wanna pull stats out your ass, make sure you have a reference to back that up. Now that I refuted that ridiculous sentence let us continue.




No I didn't I gave a specific scenario about a likely situation that can and has happened "Two men 'kidnapped Texas girl, 14, who was out trick-or-treating and raped her in a nearby park'."


Reference:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...girl-14-trick-treating-raped-nearby-park.html

Don't forget about the Amanda Berry situation:

Three kidnapping victims were repeatedly raped, resulting in 5 pregnancies: sources

Amanda Berry was 17 and Gina De Jesus was 14

Reference:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...impregnated-5-times-sources-article-1.1337398

There are plenty of kidnappings every single year and approximately of those kidnappings:

"Several distinct kinds of kidnapping exist: 49% of all kidnappings are “family kidnappings,” 27% are “acquaintance kidnappings,” and 24% are “stranger kidnappings.” The FBI states that 85% to 90% of the 876,213 persons reported missing in 2000 were juveniles. Between 1982 and 2000, the number of persons kidnapped in a year has risen 468%."

Reference:http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=158



"A report this week in the journal Reproductive Health describes what researchers call “a strong association” between the teenage birth rate of a particular state and its “level of religiosity.

Reference:http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/religions-link-to-teen-pregnancy/

Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States


Bible states

Strayhorn compiled data from various data sets. The religiosity information came from a sample of nearly 36,000 participants who were part of the U.S. Religious Landscapes Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted in 2007, while the teen birth and abortion statistics came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For religiosity, the researchers averaged the percentage of respondents who agreed with conservative responses to eight statements, including: ''There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion," and ''Scripture should be taken literally, word for word.

Reference:http://www.livescience.com/5728-teen-birth-rates-higher-highly-religious-states.html

As you can see, we live in a Judeo-Christian society which believes at least, according to the presented sources that fundamentalist Christian faiths especially in the Bible belt, believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I think its far more likely than not in most "religious states" that parents are less likely to abort the child if death wasn't imminent.




In the scenario I specifically stated that medical officials would give the two people I noted (Granule/Post-Modern) the option to abort, I didn't say it was mandatory in the scenario as I clearly stated that assuming that after the rape that the vaginal canal (cervix etc) was not damaged. I made that very clear in my scenario. Alas, your conservative position fails.
Click to expand...

5% of rapes may result in pregnancies, but less than 2% seek an abortion. This is the number under question. My specific issue with your analogy was twofold. One, it set up a very unlikely scenario, as the young girl would have most likely been treated with a rape kit of which you acknowledged.

My second issue is that you trotted out this scenario In an attempt, I believe, for pure emotionalism. When statistically speaking the number of abortions for rape is so significantly small, discussing their overall numbers as a rationale to justify abortion is ineffective. Especially so since prior to Roe, rape and medical threat to the mothers life, allowed for abortions in a number of states. If you could agree to disallow abortion except for cases of rape and actual physical threat to the mothers life, you'd find support.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
5% of rapes may result in pregnancies, but less than 2% seek an abortion. This is the number under question. My specific issue with your analogy was twofold. One, it set up a very unlikely scenario, as the young girl would have most likely been treated with a rape kit of which you acknowledged.

My second issue is that you trotted out this scenario In an attempt, I believe, for pure emotionalism. When statistically speaking the number of abortions for rape is so significantly small, discussing their overall numbers as a rationale to justify abortion is ineffective. Especially so since prior to Roe, rape and medical threat to the mothers life, allowed for abortions in a number of states. If you could agree to disallow abortion except for cases of rape and actual physical threat to the mothers life, you'd find support.
Click to expand...


Just because you're treated with a rape kit does not mean they'll automatically give you the RU-486 pill, for one, if it's a minor they have to get approval from the parents. Two, it depends on whether the hospital is a for-profit hospital or a private one. Most private hospitals are religiously based like my hospital which is a Catholic one. They don't offer abortion pills at my hospital. If the parents are considering having their child take the RU-486 pill, they refer them somewhere else and even still it is the parents decision to decide whether they want to or not.

In addition, the scenario may be unlikely as in the exact details of what I've written but it is not impossible and as I cited before look at the Amanda Berry situation.

You also said:

"When statistically speaking the number of abortions for rape is so significantly small, discussing their overall numbers as a rationale to justify abortion is ineffective."

I wouldn't expect you to read the links I gave because it specifically addresses this issue. There are tens of thousands of juveniles who are kidnapped and raped every year and as the link suggest most of them don't realize they're pregnant until the second trimester. In addition, almost 80% of rapes go unreported. So despite the small numbers the fact that 80% of that go unreported is alarming.
 
Sun Devil said:
Just because you're treated with a rape kit does not mean they'll automatically give you the RU-486 pill, for one, if it's a minor they have to get approval from the parents. Two, it depends on whether the hospital is a for-profit hospital or a private one. Most private hospitals are religiously based like my hospital which is a Catholic one. They don't offer abortion pills at my hospital. If the parents are considering having their child take the RU-486 pill, they refer them somewhere else and even still it is the parents decision to decide whether they want to or not.

In addition, the scenario may be unlikely as in the exact details of what I've written but it is not impossible and as I cited before look at the Amanda Berry situation.

You also said:

"When statistically speaking the number of abortions for rape is so significantly small, discussing their overall numbers as a rationale to justify abortion is ineffective."

I wouldn't expect you to read the links I gave because it specifically addresses this issue. There are tens of thousands of juveniles who are kidnapped and raped every year and as the link suggest most of them don't realize they're pregnant until the second trimester. In addition, almost 80% of rapes go unreported. So despite the small numbers the fact that 80% of that go unreported is alarming.
Click to expand...

OK, let's allow abortion for rape, but not the other 98% of abortions, deal?
 
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION STATE LAWS



Sixteen of these states—Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation requiring hospitals or health care facilities to provide information about and/or initiate emergency contraception therapy to women who have been sexually assaulted.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/emergency-contraception-state-laws.aspx
 
Sun Devil said:
I'm actually done responding to you on this subject. You're not only a very unintelligent person and I'm saying that you're plainly stupid, I'm saying that I don't even think you went as far as college to learn basic biology and even if you did, you either flunked the damn class or failed. So far in this thread you failed to:

A) Explain the difference between a zygote and a sperm cell

B) Explain what makes a person a human (aside from your pitiful answer that what makes a zygote a human is that it contains DNA--or was that someone else's dumbass answer)

C) Define how a zygote is comporable to a full term child.

D) Explain how aborting a zygote which isn't even a sentient thing, which is comparable to a sperm cell (aside from the obvious difference), is considered murder.

I'd rather argue with a conservative who at least has some college background on the subject on biology and could rationally explain how aborting a zygote is the equivalent to murder especially since the zygote is not even an entity. So no, I am done refuting you google warriors on this issue. It's rather boring and I'm gonna move on to greener pastures.
Click to expand...

1 http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-zygote-and-gamete/

2 in the abortion debate the the question of what is being aborted the answer is the human being at its earliest stages of development. Calling it a fetus does not change its actual humanity.

3 A newborn child is the result of having been a zygote, embryo, fetus. The infant will become a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a young adult, a middle aged adult, a senior citizen. Stages of development do not make one more or less human.

4 Zygotes are not really a part of the abortion debate, as most abortions take place after 8 weeks of pregnancy.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
OK, let's allow abortion for rape, but not the other 98% of abortions, deal?
Click to expand...

What about ectopic pregnancy?

What about the possibility of a fetus not having a viable life?

What about the woman being a child herself?

What about genetic defects in the fetus?

What about a woman deciding its her choice and her body?
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
1 http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-zygote-and-gamete/

2 in the abortion debate the the question of what is being aborted the answer is the human being at its earliest stages of development. Calling it a fetus does not change its actual humanity.

3 A newborn child is the result of having been a zygote, embryo, fetus. The infant will become a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a young adult, a middle aged adult, a senior citizen. Stages of development do not make one more or less human.

4 Zygotes are not really a part of the abortion debate, as most abortions take place after 8 weeks of pregnancy.
Click to expand...


I can actually give you credit for at least detailing your answer coherently. Allow me to go down your list in my response:

1) I put "obvious difference" in parenthesis to signify that there are differences but no significant enough to warrant the issue that "life begins at conception" equates to murder when in fact if the fact that the argument that abortion kills life, then we too must argue about the life we kill when we copulate or when we masturbate.

2) The argument from many religious conservatives it that life begins at conception, that is, the process of a human has already begun the moment the sperm and egg combine. With that said many proponents of abortion argue that abortion is the interruption and thus subsequent murder of that life. Proponents of abortion don't start with the fetus, they go further than that.

3) A zygote is not a newborn child, it is the process of those stages. My point in saying that was you cannot compare the importance of a newborn child which is sentient with that of a zygote which doesn't even contain the faculties of conscious.

4) See my answer for #2
 
Sun Devil said:
What about ectopic pregnancy?

What about the possibility of a fetus not having a viable life?

What about the woman being a child herself?

What about genetic defects in the fetus?

What about a woman deciding its her choice and her body?
Click to expand...

So in other words your answer is no. So why not give up the canard of unlikely analogies of rape that if happened would still represent less than 2 % of abortions.

Ectopic pregnancies would fall under threat to life of mother.

Infants suffer pain during abortions. If the baby dies at birth, that is a natural occurring event.

Defects do not equate less value, or create less rights to life.

It's not her body she is killing, it is the body of a separate human life.
 
Sun Devil said:
I can actually give you credit for at least detailing your answer coherently. Allow me to go down your list in my response:

1) I put "obvious difference" in parenthesis to signify that there are differences but no significant enough to warrant the issue that "life begins at conception" equates to murder when in fact if the fact that the argument that abortion kills life, then we too must argue about the life we kill when we copulate or when we masturbate.

2) The argument from many religious conservatives it that life begins at conception, that is, the process of a human has already begun the moment the sperm and egg combine. With that said many proponents of abortion argue that abortion is the interruption and thus subsequent murder of that life. Proponents of abortion don't start with the fetus, they go further than that.

3) A zygote is not a newborn child, it is the process of those stages. My point in saying that was you cannot compare the importance of a newborn child which is sentient with that of a zygote which doesn't even contain the faculties of conscious.

4) See my answer for #2
Click to expand...

There are absolutely significant differences and any first year biology student would concur with me. The argument of conception vs implantation as being the actual start of life for me is obvious, for others not so much. But again, the zygote stage of development is silly in the abortion argument. Most abortions take place between 8-12 weeks, long past the zygote stage.

http://www.babycenter.com/2_inside-pregnancy-weeks-10-to-14_10308108.bc
 
Sun Devil said:
Typical douchbagery....

Now you want to challenge the claims of victims who have been traumatized not to mention, him (XL VIII DOMINATORS) giving off false percentages of rape? 1.7 isn't even the national statistic. I see the blind is leading the blind.
Click to expand...

I already linked to the national statistic, fool.....its 1%.......
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
So in other words your answer is no. So why not give up the canard of unlikely analogies of rape that if happened would still represent less than 2 % of abortions.

Ectopic pregnancies would fall under threat to life of mother.

Infants suffer pain during abortions. If the baby dies at birth, that is a natural occurring event.

Defects do not equate less value, or create less rights to life.

It's not her body she is killing, it is the body of a separate human life.
Click to expand...

Ectopic pregnancies do fall under the category of a threat to life but alas as I've mentioned before there were people here in this very thread that stated that the fetus trumps the life of the mother (looks at post-modern prophet).

"Infants suffer pain during abortions" oh yeah about fetal pain during abortions, let's discuss that assertion:

Where does this premise for a 20-week abortion ban come from?


"House members repeatedly cited the research of Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. His work, which has been the go-to resource for anti-abortion groups, was mentioned at least four times on the House floor. Citing Anand's findings, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) argued that "the baby responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling." She went on to claim that the pain of a fetus at 20 weeks is "possibly more intense than that felt by older newborns."


"But Anand is an outlier........"

A 2005 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association surveyed the medical literature and found little evidence to support his conclusions. There is an established body of evidence that finds that fetuses start developing the biological pathways related to pain sensation at this stage of gestation, but there is not enough evidence to suggest that they can actually experience pain as we do. The majority of the scientific literature on the subject finds that the brain connections required to feel pain are not formed until at least 24 weeks.

Why is the idea that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks is bunk?

" fetuses can respond to stress or other stimuli at 20 weeks, abortion after that point causes them "severe and excruciating pain." The bulk of the scientific literature on the subject, however, finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Anand's testimony has been used to justify state and federal laws banning abortions after 20 weeks; those efforts have passed in nine states since 2010."

By the way Dominators, an infant doesn't get aborted. An infant is a month old AFTER being born, this is different from a 20-24 week fetus......

"Defects do not equate less value, or create less rights to life..."

this is not about value, but about viability and an ability to thrive in life as a full functioning person. That is not to say the person is less normal, but in instances that there would be a debilitating defect in which the fetus may not grow to reach its full potential or the potential for growth. It is the parents rights to decide if they want to have ahealthy baby. Although society may not agree with the decision to abort a fetus with an abnormal chromosomal disorder such as down syndrome, ultimately it is their right and their decision.

"It's not her body she is killing, it is the body of a seperate human life."

If it's a fetus it's still a developing mammal it is not a complete mammal, but nonetheless it is still her right to rid herself of the parasite in her body, to infringe on that right is to also infringe on her freedom of choice.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet you promote a constitutional right to abort as a method of birth control......obviously you are not opposed to it, you champion it.....you are not alone....its how liberals rationalize their blood lust.....
Click to expand...

This makes no fucking sense.....If I'm opposed to something I merely disagree with the decision to use abortion as a form of method. I support the free choice regardless whether that choice is logic or not. It's about the freedom to choose not the morality of it. If a young kid decides to use abortion as a method of birth control fine, that is their choice. I don't agree with it, but there are other women who have various reasons why they go through abortions.
 
Sun Devil said:
This makes no fucking sense.....If I'm opposed to something I merely disagree with the decision to use abortion as a form of method. I support the free choice regardless whether that choice is logic or not. It's about the freedom to choose not the morality of it. If a young kid decides to use abortion as a method of birth control fine, that is their choice. I don't agree with it, but there are other women who have various reasons why they go through abortions.
Click to expand...


I wish you had been aborted. I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and hand your mom a gold plated coat hanger
 
Sun Devil said:
This makes no fucking sense.....If I'm opposed to something I merely disagree with the decision to use abortion as a form of method. I support the free choice regardless whether that choice is logic or not. It's about the freedom to choose not the morality of it. If a young kid decides to use abortion as a method of birth control fine, that is their choice. I don't agree with it, but there are other women who have various reasons why they go through abortions.
Click to expand...

BTW

why don't you agree with using abortion as a form of birth control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top