Debate: How do you feel about abortions?

[lx_theo]

PkMn Trainer Yellow, do you have the ability to emphasize or actually read everything that's been said (or not ignore it), because your last post just screamed no as an answer to both of them.

 

[Dawn]

Every point you just made works for your "argument" as well, don't pass it off like it doesn't apply to you. You even admitted that you couldn't find a consensus either.

In some of the cases, it /doesn't/ apply to me. I made the last rebuttal to Theo. He did not make one back. I am not at all obligated to make a second rebuttal. That, would be silly.

And nobody has refuted any of my evidence in this thread. Some of my points have been refuted, but that's not the same thing.

And... I don't see how I implied that the lack of a consensus didn't apply my argument. I mean, I sat there and said it left /us/ to theory. Unless, of course, someone /else/ manages to find what I failed to find.

PkMn Trainer Yellow, do you have the ability to emphasize or actually read everything that's been said (or not ignore it), because your last post just screamed no as an answer to both of them.

You're grasping at straws.

Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

It does in fact consume. Doing it independently and devouring through the mouth are not requirements. Processing the nutrients in some vague form is ALL that's required.

You completely ignored everything except the first sentence, and went on to pretend I didn't just literally refute you by showing you the definition of consume in the context.

Please. Stop making me do all the work for you.

You also undermine your argument when you get angry and start using cruise control for cool while insulting people. =|
To refute my evidence you would have to invalidate the reputability or conclusiveness of the websites I've linked, as they are my evidence. Nobody has even attempted to do that yet.

 

[Melody]

PkMn Trainer Yellow, do you have the ability to emphasize or actually read everything that's been said (or not ignore it), because your last post just screamed no as an answer to both of them.

*sigh* Emotions have no place in a legitimate debate. Not even debates about morality. Using such tactics is looked down upon by serious debaters FOR A REASON!

It flies in a relationship, but not in the forum of academic debate, which is purely a logical world. Your side of the debate has been failing to cite their sources, and are basing things purely off of your own limited scope and experience, which doesn't really explain logically, why anyone else but you feel that way.

 

[lx_theo]

*sigh* Emotions have no place in a legitimate debate. Not even debates about morality. Using such tactics is looked down upon by serious debaters FOR A REASON!

It flies in a relationship, but not in the forum of academic debate, which is purely a logical world. Your side of the debate has been failing to cite their sources, and are basing things purely off of your own limited scope and experience, which doesn't really explain logically, why anyone else but you feel that way.

There no argument for pro life if what you say is true.

 

[Melody]

As usual he has no logic to bring forth, and is instead attempting a lame reversal.

Pro-Life is a morality argument. It is a fact that killing a human is immoral. The part which is up for debate is when in a pregnancy do we grant the unborn child the rights of a human.

 

[lx_theo]

...Can you expand on that, please?
You haven't given any logic or points, let alone evidence.

Because emotions always play a role in a realistic issue. It doesn't matter whether or not it's academic, ignoring them on a real world scale simply puts you at nothing because it contradicts our society in general. If we put solely academic ideology in this real world, morality based issue, no one would care beyond extremists like PETA because there would be no empathy for the child in question. It's a horrible thought that anyone, especially pro life activists would think such an approach has any place beyond a classroom.


As for the consumption thing, while I did miss that part because I saw the quote and thougt you had simply quoted another person, you are still wrong.

If your definition is true, a wildfire and anything like that fits your definition. Consumption is on a level of being capable of self sustaining itself through bringing in the materials by it's own means, no matter the source, and for it to sustain itself from that ability and process g of nutrients. It doesn't have to be through the mouth, no, as many creatures have the ability to absorb water, take in sunlight and such. In any living thing, you see this happen, you see the actual physical capability to bring in nutrients when needed and sustain itself through processing it. You do not see this in a fetus. Simple as that.

Don't, worry I already went and looked up all my facts a long time ago on this subject. I found a middle ground between my initial beliefs and the opposing side that works. Too bad people like you are around.

 

[Shining Raichu]

I admit I have read very little of what has gone on here, but Pkmn Trainer Yellow, from what little I have read, it would seem to me that your argument is just smoke and mirrors. You're speaking in full, clear sentences with correct spelling and punctuation, and even wording what you're saying in an intelligent fashion to disguise the fact that you don't really have any premise or any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Livewire]

I will warn you all one last time. Keep this logical and civil, or I will infract each and every one of you, no questions asked.

 

[Dawn]

As for the consumption thing, while I did miss that part because I saw the quote and thougt you had simply quoted another person, you are still wrong.

If your definition is true, a wildfire and anything like that fits your definition. Consumption is on a level of being capable of self sustaining itself through bringing in the materials by it's own means, no matter the source, and for it to sustain itself from that ability and process g of nutrients. It doesn't have to be through the mouth, no, as many creatures have the ability to absorb water, take in sunlight and such. In any living thing, you see this happen, you see the actual physical capability to bring in nutrients when needed and sustain itself through processing it. You do not see this in a fetus. Simple as that.

See, if you read my sources, it actually addressed this quite directly.

To qualify as a living thing, an organism must in one way or
another meet each of those criteria. After all, crystals grow
in solution, and take on more material from the surrounding
solution in order to do so, but do not respond neurologically. if you poke them with a pin. Of course, you don't often see

mature Ponderosa pines strolling down Fifth Avenue either, so
the criteria are open to interpretation. Plants move through
growth, except in special cases like the Venus flytrap; most
plants follow the sun through a complex system which floods the
side of the plant shaded from the sun with water, swelling the
shaded side and causing the plant to lean toward the sun.

Crystals consume. Fires consume. They meet that criteria of being alive. However, they do not meet ALL of the criteria for being alive. Fire does not have stimulus response, and one of the sub-criteria for motion is that it should move in some discernible purpose. Fire, arguably does not move with a discernible purpose, but rather moves wherever it can whenever it can. As is stated above in the quote, things should meet ALL of the categories.

As you can see, it's quite clear that consumption does not require independence in any way shape or form in this context.

 

[lx_theo]

See, if you read my sources, it actually addressed this quite directly.


Crystals consume. Fires consume. They meet that criteria of being alive. However, they do not meet ALL of the criteria for being alive. Fire does not have stimulus response, and one of the sub-criteria for motion is that it should move in some discernible purpose. Fire, arguably does not move with a discernible purpose, but rather moves wherever it can whenever it can. As is stated above in the quote, things should meet ALL of the categories.

As you can see, it's quite clear that consumption does not require independence in any way shape or form in this context.

It still does, and argument there is void. How do you define stimulus response? Natural reactions that happen to adapt to changing situation forming around them. Small, living, cellular beings don't have any sort of nervous system beyond chemical reactions spurring reactions to a new environment. The same fact is evident for things like the crystals and fires. There's no sentience to the decisions, but neither are many of the simple life we see all around us, so expanded it more complex terms nulls it.

 

[Oryx]

It still does, and argument there is void. How do you define stimulus response? Natural reactions that happen to adapt to changing situation forming around them. Small, living, cellular beings don't have any sort of nervous system beyond chemical reactions spurring reactions to a new environment. The same fact is evident for things like the crystals and fires. There's no sentience to the decisions, but neither are many of the simple life we see all around us, so expanded it more complex terms nulls it.

What are you trying to prove exactly, that Yellow's signs of life are wrong, or that a fetus doesn't show all the signs of life? I don't understand your logic here, because a fetus is definitely alive, and her signs of life are correct. Where are you going with that argument?

 

[lx_theo]

What are you trying to prove exactly, that Yellow's signs of life are wrong, or that a fetus doesn't show all the signs of life? I don't understand your logic here, because a fetus is definitely alive, and her signs of life are correct. Where are you going with that argument?

A fetus isn't alive until the end of the first trimester. After that, it can be considered murder as some would like to say, before that, its okay.

Before I researched this for a paper about a year ago, I was pro-choice. My point of view was a lot like The Trotsky's. In my research, i found a middle ground that works. I'm not arguing pro-choice or pro-life, I'm arguing against these polar ends people like to go to instead of finding a compromise that help us progress instead of just hate each other. Admittedly, I haven't done the best job of it up to this point because of how people who refuse to consider other views, but I'm trying more now.

And no, her traits of life are not "correct", neither are mine to an extent. There is no definitive definition or anything like that for life, and anyone who thinks that their points are is a fool. We can try to get close to find a reasonable middle ground between motive, though.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

If I were a member of the California Legislature and I had to negotiate with the pro-choicers, this is what I'd do:
-Allow elective abortions during the first trimester provided that there is a 24-48 hour waiting period with the patient being able to claim financial hardship to be exempt from the waiting period and a mandate parental notification for persons under the age of 18 seeking an abortion with the ability to get an exemption from a court of law via an emergency motion if the circumstances warrant it.
-Ban all abortions after the first trimester except for situations where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life or long-term health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape.
-Forbid the state from providing funding towards any form of abortion services. Organizations like Planned Parenthood could still get state aid to fund other activities such as sexual education campaigns, family counseling, and the like as long as those funds are not used on abortion services in any way, shape, or form (again with an exception being made for the life or long-term health of the mother or in cases of rape when the mother can demonstrate that they cannot afford to fully pay for the procedure and their current health care provider will not fully cover the procedure).

 

[lx_theo]

If I were a member of the California Legislature and I had to negotiate with the pro-choicers, this is what I'd do:
-Allow elective abortions during the first trimester provided that there is a 24-48 hour waiting period with the patient being able to claim financial hardship to be exempt from the waiting period and a mandate parental notification for persons under the age of 18 seeking an abortion with the ability to get an exemption from a court of law via an emergency motion if the circumstances warrant it.
-Ban all abortions after the first trimester except for situations where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life or long-term health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape.
-Forbid the state from providing funding towards any form of abortion services. Organizations like Planned Parenthood could still get state aid to fund other activities such as sexual education campaigns, family counseling, and the like as long as those funds are not used on abortion services in any way, shape, or form (again with an exception being made for the life or long-term health of the mother or in cases of rape when the mother can demonstrate that they cannot afford to fully pay for the procedure and their current health care provider will not fully cover the procedure).

Imo, the biggest changes I'd make are that while parental notification could be necessary, it'd also have to make sure that they are not the ones who make the decision for the girl, unless they are of a particularly young age. That would mean that while the girl can be consulted by both a neutral source and her family, they shouldn't be allowed direct access to the girl unless she wants to allow it.

The other is the Planned Parenthood issue. Its funding of abortion is very small now, and at the very least (personally I'd prefer it to be how it is now), it should be made available to emergency situations, families of those of financial hardship (both sort of like you said), and underage abortions (if just to ensure the part about parent participation above is fulfilled so the girl can keep her choice in the matter).

 

[Phototoxin]

I'm against it unless medically necessary to save a mothers life (in which case it would be a byproduct of the treatment)

 

[Steven]

I'm not a man, I am not going to try and put myself into that position and therefore I will not do anything against it. However I think it's the woman's choice.

Would you rather have officially done abortions with little risk of complications, or home-done abortions like people did when it wasn't available? Just because it's illegal that doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means that now people will try by themselves and harm themselves and the baby.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Imo, the biggest changes I'd make are that while parental notification could be necessary, it'd also have to make sure that they are not the ones who make the decision for the girl, unless they are of a particularly young age. That would mean that while the girl can be consulted by both a neutral source and her family, they shouldn't be allowed direct access to the girl unless she wants to allow it.

The other is the Planned Parenthood issue. Its funding of abortion is very small now, and at the very least (personally I'd prefer it to be how it is now), it should be made available to emergency situations, families of those of financial hardship (both sort of like you said), and underage abortions (if just to ensure the part about parent participation above is fulfilled so the girl can keep her choice in the matter).

I disagree. Minors have no say in teir medical decisions. A 17 year old can't even buy cough syrup without a parent in most places. They also cannot go to the doctor's office without a parent. It is perfectly legal to have the parents involved in their child's medical decisions until they are 18 years of age or older.

 

[Morgnarok]

It depends on the situation. If you were raped yes i could see you wanting one but if you layed down and had sex willing without protection and then you want to just get ride of the child after u find out i say no because you willing layed down and did it, You just shouldn't be allowed to kill off a living being if it was your choice to create it.

 

[Timbjerr]

A person's individual experiences validate pro choice. If you don't like it, don't get an abortion. You'll never have to see or hear of it since you're so vehemently against it, it will never effect you. So why care, and why tell others how to live their lives?

I'll add a personal example.

Family friends of ours carried an already dangerous pregnancy to term. The child was born with a laundry list of medical diseases and afflictions, including Muscular Dystrophy and severe mental retardation. That child lived for 9 years, and every single damn second was heartbreaking to watch as his health deteriorated to the point where his vital organs were kept going by an array of machines, otherwise he'd be dead in seconds. He was doomed to pain. His parents confided in us later that they would have preferably had an early abortion (which you can't do now, thanks to our GOP friends and the cuts), rather than put a child through 9 years worth of pain and suffering.

When I saw this thread pop up, I chose to stay out of this debate and merely lurk. Then I saw this personal anecdote and felt like sharing one of my own.

I was a difficult pregnancy on my mother. Every medical consult she had during the early months of her pregnancy told her that if I wasn't aborted, she could very well die in childbirth. Being the adamant Catholic she was, she refused to even acknowledge the murder of her child as an option. It was a difficult decision on everyone else involved, but it was ultimately decided that my life was more important than hers.

Call it what you want. I don't know if God had a hand in anything or if the medical science available in 1987 is more advanced than I give it credit for, but both my mother and I are still alive and healthy today despite the myriad of health problems I was born with and that were left for her.

I know I'm in the minority opinion here, and I'm in no mood to debate anything. I just wanna put it out there that a difficult pregnancy isn't always a valid excuse for an abortion. I'll give you rape...painful and depressing memories and all, but anything can happen in difficult pregnancies for better or for worse.

 

[Dawn]

I disagree. Minors have no say in teir medical decisions. A 17 year old can't even buy cough syrup without a parent in most places. They also cannot go to the doctor's office without a parent. It is perfectly legal to have the parents involved in their child's medical decisions until they are 18 years of age or older.

I'd like to throw in that I would bet that nobody who supports the bypassing of the parents is actually a parent, as most good parents would see how important it is that they have control over their children when it comes down to it.

Quite frankly, if I had an under 18 child, and she pulled a stunt like that, I'd be hard pressed to ever fully forgive her. At the point she's making controversial decisions like getting pregnant and getting abortions and taking away my control over the matter... I can't express how angry I would be. There would be consequences. Severe consequences. Like house arrest. I'd be getting her professional help straight away, so that we could figure out what's going through her head that makes her think what she is doing is acceptable, because it's not. It's absolutely unacceptable. The more she fought back, the tougher I'd get. Of course, I'd certainly hope I could raise a child well enough that they wouldn't do something so... abhorrent in the first place.

...I feel really old, suddenly.

But yeah... this whole bypass the parent thing just screams rebellious adolescent. Children generally aren't fit to be adults, and even if by some stroke of chance they /have/ matured faster than others, it should be up to the adult to decide that, as a child is more likely to have a bias and or not accurately gauge their maturity. It's just not safe or practical to be forcefully giving children the control via the law. If the adult thinks the child is ready, they can give the control on an individual basis. All getting the law involved would do is make the problem worse. Bad parents will be bad parents, but the law is arguably an even worse parent.

Why does it disturb me so much that people actually support such a thing? It really shouldn't, considering how young the demographic here is. <___>; I'm sure people will understand and accept the value better as they grow up.