The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 4

*sigh*

Warbler said:

*sigh*

TV's Frink said:

 

Nanner Split said:

Alexrd said:

TV's Frink said:

Let's say my wife and I have three children, two of which are still with us. We absolutely under no circumstances want another child. Does that mean we should have to give up sex completely?

Unless you don't want to accept the possible consequences, yes.

"Accept the possible consequences"? I swear to god, some of you people make sex sound like a fucking drug addiction or something.

THIS

 

THIS

TV's Frink said:

Alexrd said:

If we were to get pregnant accidentally despite taking all reasonable precautions, should we be forced to have a child we did not want to have?

Precautions that you know are fallible. Why risk it, then? I understand liking to have sex, but in my opinion, if people are willing to have sex, then they should willingly accept the possible consequences too.

I don't even know where to start with this one, at least without offending you in a way I'd rather not offend.

AND THIS

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Nanner, it is a simple undeniable fact that every time you have sex, you risk creating a pregnancy.  

THIS.

Erm, dude, I don't think it works when you do it to your own posts. ;)

*sigh*

Alexrd said:

No need for a strawman, here.

I fail to see any fallacy or offense in stating that sex risks pregnancy.  Its a fact. 

I agree Warb and Alexrd.  And I too fail to see how such a risk should not be taken seriously into account when anyone, even a loving, stable couple with enough kids already.  If someone thinks that they can't possible handle another child responsibly, they should choose celibacy over killing.  What's more important, your sex life or your child's life?

walkingdork said:

Here's my two cents...

At one point in my life I was pro-life but I at least acknowledged a need for abortion if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. Now I am 100% pro-choice, specifically women's choice. It's their body(and the child's), what they decide to do with it is not my concern and I would be an arrogant male to presume that I should have a say or a vote on the subject. Sure if it's my baby stewing in there I might try to influence the decision but who am I to decide for women as a whole?

fixed, who are the women to decide for the babies as a whole?

I actually have several healthy, stable, non-sexual relationships.  Only one relationship in my life involves sex.  My point is that there is a higher priority, not that sex isn't important.

Must...hold...tongue....

^Not my point of view.  I work in behavioral health with children 0-5 years old--children that only qualify for my program if they receive Medicaid.  I'm not into state mandated insurance, but I do believe that some sort of option should be available for everyone.  Ideally that's how our system would work, with the poor qualifying for welfare, but it's inefficient, broke government trying to manage this so it never works.  I hear you though.  That's one reason I am a self-admitted RINO.  I'm much more of a middle of the road independent in reality.

As for your previous comment, as well as Frink's held tongue (that's not like you, Frink ;), I know babies are damaging, but if you got drunk, a perfectly legal and enjoyable (to many) activity, and did something stupid that resulted in someone else living on a life support system.  Now let's say that this life support system required that your body provide nutrients to this injured person (an abortion advocate created this analogy, not me, only she left out the part where you are responsible for the person being hooked up to you).  Would it be right or wrong for you to disconnect yourself from this life support system and allow the other individual to die?  It would certainly be damaging to you to remain on it.  But you did make the choice to drink, which ultimately led to this person's needing it.

I'm sorry that God (or Mother Nature) decided that females carry the babies.  Take that up with them.  But instead of leveling the playing field by killing innocent children, couldn't the playing field be leveled by demanding more of irresponsible fathers?

I know that this thread will do nothing to change anyone's mind.  I just will never see the logic.  Injuring mothers, family economic difficulties, family contentedness, healthy sexual relationship...all very important considerations.  Killing someone...oh, wow, that outweighs all other considerations to me.

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that, but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person.  The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

TV's Frink said:

Must...hold...tongue....

Exactly.

darth_ender said:

I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that,

I don't have a problem with long posts. I am not a mod. It doesn't matter if you make long posts. It doesn't matter if I did have a problem with long posts. You have a right to make long posts. Make long posts if you want.

My comment from before was regarding the first page when every other four posts in a row were yours, and were all overly long. I commented that it wasn't worth the time or effort on my part to respond because it was muddled and confusing to have debate like that; especially since you already admitted nothing will ever change your mind. But you know all of that, because we've had this discussion already.

But yeah, I think it is a great idea to bring this up in each and every post you make in this thread! By all means, please keep doing that. I'll make an effort to do the same. You know, it might even be a good idea to go ahead and mention it in every post we make even in other threads. That could be a lot of fun!

but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body.  Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable.  All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby.  Why the change of heart?  My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person. The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.

Because she had several months to take all of that into account. It is not a change of heart, it is merely putting a limit on at what stage of development the mother can have the baby removed. With your logic you could easily say the same thing about a post-natal child, they are stressful and can cause the mother a lot of hardships both financially and mentally. It is like that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom decides she wants to have him aborted only to discover you can't abort eight year old kids.

Obviously a limit has to be drawn somewhere.

I honestly don't even think the hard pro-life side takes the unborn baby that seriously. Almost all of you stated that you are okay with abortion in the cases or rape. So, because this human life was created out of the horrible actions of someone else, killing it is justifiable? Just about all of you also stated that when the mother's life is at risk it is also acceptable. If we say an unborn child is a person who deserves all the rights any post-natal human would be granted, how is putting the health and well being of the mother above that of the baby justifiable?

"Sorry, you have every right to live, but in this case you're going to have to die so your mother can live". Before the obvious rebuttal of "Well, if the mother dies, so does the baby", there are so many cases where it is just a precaution that abortion is recommended on account of the mother's health. It is possible the mother and baby could both make it through the gestation period, or that the mother could make it long enough to carry the baby to the point that it is viable to live outside of the womb.

I think both these examples show that even pro-choicers admit somewhere deep down that an unborn child is not quite of equal value to that of a person. 

^I brought up this very point in one of my very long posts that you hate so much that I love to bring up all the time.  I think I've only done it once or twice, and not as a means of insulting you.  I don't know why you feel so compelled to take everything to an extreme.  You stated you don't mean any offense, but I doubt you are simply teasing.

darth_ender said:

^I brought up this very point in one of my very long posts that you hate so much that I love to bring up all the time.  I think I've only done it once or twice, and not as a means of insulting you.  I don't know why you feel so compelled to take everything to an extreme.  You stated you don't mean any offense, but I doubt you are simply teasing.

I am not simply teasing; it is really fucking annoying that you keep bringing it up. I'm not taking anything to the extreme. I am not the one that got upset or offended about anything. I simply made a few casual comments and you turned it into a big deal, and now for some reason you keep bringing it back up.

I have apologized if you didn't notice.  I wasn't bringing it up to harass you, but simply as a way to apologize for another lengthy comment, as I am prone to do.  And in the end, while it saddens me to read your rude comments, I don't feel that I am being nearly so disrespectful, and I doubt anyone reading our conversation here would see me as the more upset between the two of us.  I promise to drop it from now on.  Heck, if you like, I won't respond or reference anything you say since apparently this is such a big deal to you.  Just know that I have said I'm sorry for my agitating you (including in your PM box), have received no such acknowledgement or apology from you (perhaps you never did anything wrong), I don't think I'm overreacting nearly as much as you are, and I'm not going to such lengths to insult you for the annoying things you've done in this conversation.  Block me from now on if you've got a problem with me.  I think I'm done talking to you for the time being as well.