Pro-life atheists

[Rampant.A.I.]

You have a point about irresponsible behavior, but bear in mind these are the same people who want to deny contraceptives, deny the Morning After contraception pill that simply prevents the woman's ovaries from releasing an egg, or the RU-486 pill for women who are less than 7 weeks pregnant.

They don't see a distinction (see thread) between a blastocyst, and a toddler.

Unless, of course, your toddler needs health care.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You have a point about irresponsible behavior, but bear in mind these are the same people who want to deny contraceptives, deny the RU-486 contraception pill that prevents implantation.

They don't see a distinction (see thread) between a blastocyst, and a toddler.

Unless, of course, your toddler needs health care.

Well, I think that both sides are taking this to the extreme.
More and more extreme statements are made by both sides.
Its a stupid debate amongst people who have nothing else to discuss, I guess.

[The Valkyrie]

You are all debating the wrong subject, really.
I think that the abortion debate is about whether a woman is able to buy the services of a doctor.
The only "value" I see in this debate is not the value of life, nor the value of choice, only the value of the fetus in relation to the doctor(service provider), that is money. Here, a fetus, and her carrier is nothing more than a source of money.
The pro-life people don't understand this, neither do the pro-choice people.
For me, abortion is not a moral choice. Its a choice of whether you can actually bear the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Most women who have had abortions did the following: they paid a small price(in cash) to avoid further expanses(on a baby). So its nothing more than perhaps pure cold logic, and a means of disposing of a liability(economic or social) for them. There is no choice involved, but only...say calculation. How can there be any morals here to be discussed?

Similarly, discussing the life of a fetus is really moot. Yes, fetuses are technically alive. Though I'd say that pro-life activists are not tackling the root of the problem, as much as tackling the outcome.
The root problem is irresponsiblility. The root problem is stupidity. The root problem is out-of wedlock relationships, with outcomes that women cannot handle.
In my opinion, they should rename themselves pro-responsibility. Since this is a problem regarding society, we should look at fetuses in terms of where and how they stand in this. They are potential contributors to the human resource that fuels society. Given that, when does a fetus become a part of that society?

Actually, it is mostly about choice.

Certainly economics comes into it - a different take on part of your argument. But, from what I've seen, well off married women are as likely to get abortions as poor women - the main difference is that they can actually afford it.

In fact, I have not seen any credible evidence that unmarried women get more abortions than married women.

What has been stressed over and over again is the need for comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, both of which many pro-birthers are also opposed to, stressing instead so called "abstinance only education". Well, it's not education and it doesn't work.

As for responsibility: yes people should be more responsible, and many would be if they had the education, but many do not. And responsibility falls on BOTH partners, not just the woman. And since many studies have shown that sex for men and women is not only natural but healthy for all concerned, why should the woman be the one who has to abstain from what is also a very fun activity?

Finally, responsibility doesn't cover incidences of rape, incest or accidents - after all, no form of contraception is 100% and, of course, some people just get carried away: we are animals, after all, and sex is a strong instinct in us.

---

---

Why don't you start by describing how we're worse off for allowing abortions.

Suppose Hitler killed all the Jews and doing so, stopped a chain of events in which a future Jew destroys the world. Does the fact that in the end we might be better off that Hitler killed all the jews make his actions moral?

What if a fetus that was aborted would have grown up, invented a practical fusion process and saved mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect? Does that make abortion immoral?

The morality of an act isn't determined by future results. There is no need for me to make an argument that we would be better off if abortion were illegal.

Abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. I think I am safe by saying such things are immoral.

---

Or once again comparing it to the killing of Native Americans . . .

I like to use Native Americans as an example because there seems to be the perception that good always conquers evils(like the case of the NAZIs loosing). This isn't always the case.

---

Sometimes evil prevails(as in the case of the pro-abortion movement).
You know, if you were any more full of shit you'd be an overflowing sewer

[Losty]

Hmmm that looks like proof to me. Proof that you conveniently ignored.

Sorry Losty, I missed this post. Its actually a good link because we can examine the circumstances instead of a nebulous reference too "cases exist".

Do circumstances exists where by it is reasonable to assume the baby has to come out or the mother dies? Yes.

Do circumstances exist where by it is reasonable to assume the baby will likely not survive the extraction? Yes.

Does this mean we should simply ignore the rights of the baby as this woman did? No.

The problem I have is Ms Kellog and her doctors decided to solve this problem by killing the baby. To accomplish this, first they dilate her, then they reach into the uterus, grabbed one of the baby's legs, then grabbed the other. Pulled the baby out until the base of the skull was exposed, made an incision into the skull and sucked the baby's brains out. This is done so that the skull will collapse some when the baby is pulled completely out.

My question is why did they not dilate her until the point where it is no longer necessary to suck the baby's brains out? There was no attempt whatsoever to keep this baby alive.

Further, cases like these are exceedingly rare and you are making an argument from an exception. Since the partial birth abortion ban went into effect, how many documented cases exist of mothers losing their lives?

"There was no hope for my surviving son. He was too tiny and too frail to be
viable. With my dangerously high blood pressure, a c-section would have
likely caused me to bleed to death, and inducing labor would have
stressed my system too much. My safest option was the procedure known
as an intact dilation and extraction. It would save my life, and
preserve my future fertility. As luck would have it, my obstetrician
happened to be one of three doctors in the Philadelphia area that was
both trained and willing to do the procedure. Within an hour of
receiving my bad news, I lay in the surgical suite, covered in tubes
and wires, weeping inconsolably as the doctors tried to offer comfort
as they prepped me for surgery.

It was the worst day of my life."

Dilating far enough to fit the full head was too high of a risk. It can take hours and even days to dilate a cervix big enough to fit a baby's head. Why should she die so that her son has the chance to die instead of being killed. Who are are you to say that slowly dying is better than a quick death? And who are you to say that is woman's life had so little worth that she should die to give her son just a few more minutes. Her only options were the death o her baby or dying together with him.


And to answer your question, I think it's around 300 deaths per year due to preeclampsia.

---

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

Her body couldn't handle the stress. Dilate her further and she most likely would have died.

[Heywood]

And to answer your question, I think it's around 300 deaths per year due to preeclampsia.

This is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked if the number of deaths among pregnant women increased after partial birth abortion bans went into effect.

Her body couldn't handle the stress. Dilate her further and she most likely would have died.

You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

[Losty]

And to answer your question, I think it's around 300 deaths per year due to preeclampsia.

This is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked if the number of deaths among pregnant women increased after partial birth abortion bans went into effect.

Her body couldn't handle the stress. Dilate her further and she most likely would have died.

You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Well it took hours for me to dilate so I guess you're wrong in saying it "wouldn't".
You can only honestly say it might not. Might not isn't good enough when someone is literally dying on your operating table.

How the hell would it be more humane to pull out a non-viable fetus and watch it die knowin there's no way you can save it anyways?

[Heywood]

This is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked if the number of deaths among pregnant women increased after partial birth abortion bans went into effect.


You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Well it took hours for me to dilate so I guess you're wrong.

Did they dilate you with a speculum or did they just let you dilate on your own when you were ready to deliver?

[Losty]

[quote='Heywood' pid='677160' dateline='1401245945']

This is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked if the number of deaths among pregnant women increased after partial birth abortion bans went into effect.


You don't know this. You don't even know the diameter of the baby's head(it would have been about 6.5 centimeters). It wouldn't have take hours or days to dilate her. They can't kill the baby outside the womb...so they have to kill it inside....or it becomes a patient.

Did they dilate you with a speculum or did they just let you dilate on your own when you were ready to deliver?
Well it took hours for me to dilate so I guess you're wrong.

Neither

[Whateverist]

You mad.

Using some ridiculous teenage phrase when you've been proven wrong shows us all how mature and intelligent you are. And yes your level of ignorance and arrogance is enough to make anyone mad.

Lets see. That narrows it down to very young or a middle aged tea-bagging deadbeat. First class douche at the very least.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is why talking to people who only know how to deal in absolutes is pointless.

Isn't it true, Heywood, that no matter what anyone else here states, you will steadfastly stick to your guns thus ensuring there is absolutely no point in further discussion?

I doubt very much that someone here could convince me that a zygote or embryo is not a human being....that would be like trying to convince me the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. Some facts are only disputed by the incredulous ones.

Now could someone convince me that humanity is better off because we allow abortions....that it is a net good for humanity? Maybe but I suppose a case could be made that humanity is better off that the Native Americans were slaughtered.

Could someone make the case that there is nothing immoral about killing another human being for matters of convenience(as in the case of the vast majority of abortions)...I doubt that too.

Not too long ago you said that 'science' agreed with your stance without citations.

I see now instead you've resorted to appeals to emotion over and above any sort of citation based argument. So really I rest my case.

Last, I am pretty sure the pro-abortion folks are just as steadfast in their convictions as I am.

Well ok, let me take a leaf from your book.

'Science' actually tends to agree with the pro-choice lobby regarding when the line is drawn where a human becomes a human. It's always going to be a blurred line, but we can rule out stages such as the zygote.

But seeing as you pretty much agree with me that you're not here for a discussion, I see no reason to further engage with you on this subject.