Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback

[Fallen_Horse]

"Abortion is used like many surgeries and medications, it prevents people from taking responsibility for their own actions."

 

This is in fact a myth.

 

 

That is in fact not a myth. Anytime you give someone an alternative to contraception, there will always be people that use that alternative. Whether 100 women use it, or 100,000, that's more fetus death due to legalized abortions.

 

BTW I'm not going to argue for/against abortion in this thread because I believe it's pointless, but I will post when I feel some information needs to be corrected...

[Aaron]

Kind of depends on how you define "taking responsibility" doesn't it?

[DaN]

Again this is not my personal view about the right or wrong of abortion, it is just an interesting angle to look at:

 

Had someone aborted my great great grandfather, that would have stopped the birth of all generations after him, including me.When you abort one baby, you are potentially killing thousands of people.If abortion would have been possible back when the theoretical proto clan mothers from our very distant past were around, it could infact be murdering millions.This may seem extreme to you, but think about it..... its undeniably true.

 

Johan raised the critical point about not having sex until you are ready to be a parent.

 

That is infact the natural order of things.We should technically maybe only have sex 1-4 times in our lifetime, with the purpose to have 1-4 children (as example)

 

We all make a fatal error at the first stage of "sex" by regarding it as something to be done for pleasure as well as having children.Infact this basic misconception at this fundamental level, creates all the problems that follow.

 

Its the same in all avenues of life, if you make an error in step one, you will create a limitless number of problems, with no clear solution.The only true way to amend the error is to go back & evaluate step one, & make a different choice.

 

That is why the world is so messed up nowadays.We made the wrong decisions at crucial points in our history (like killing animals) & now everything we do is wrong in some way, to the point where like in this argument about abortion, there does not seem to be a way out of it that is the truth.

 

Its like in a maze.At the start there are 2 branches of the path, the first path (A) goes to another 100 paths, one of which gets to the end.The other path (B) goes to another 100 paths, none of which go to the end.Choose (B) & you can spend an eternity going down the 100 wrong paths, & none of them get you to the end.You think, wow I have done 100 paths, & none of them led to the end, there is no wrong or right way to go.But that 1st choice put you in a part of the maze where there is no right or wrong.But there is always an ultimate 100% right choice & a 100% wrong choice, its just so far back in the beginning that people dont seem to even realise it exists (path A)

[xjohanx]

"Abortion is used like many surgeries and medications, it prevents people from taking responsibility for their own actions."

 

This is in fact a myth. I went to a conference on sexuality and women a couple year's ago and the morning after pill was a hot topic, and the use of abortion as bc came up. I don't have the studies with me (so I won't berade the facts of the argument), but less than 50% of abortions result from lack of use of contraception (so more than 50% of abortions results from the failure of contraception). And, for example, in New York, the rate of repeats is only at 4% (so that's 4% of women who have abortions get repeats) and that does not mean that those 4% are using it as bc (though it would statistically be the most reliable marker). But 4% of the abortion-getting female population doesn't even come close to qualifying as "women using abortions as bc". But as I said, I don't have the stats, so I will make my argument based on common sense.

 

I never said or implied that abortions is used as a birth control (I am guessing that is what bc stands for) so I'm not really sure what you wrote all that stuff for.

[DaN]

robert wrote:

You remind me of Richard. Are you Richard?

 

[VeganDeVil]

That is infact the natural order of things.We should technically maybe only have sex 1-4 times in our lifetime, with the purpose to have 1-4 children (as example)

 

We all make a fatal error at the first stage of "sex" by regarding it as something to be done for pleasure as well as having children.Infact this basic misconception at this fundamental level, creates all the problems that follow.

1-4 times? Wow.

Edited September 20, 2008 by VeganDeVil

[Fallen_Horse]

Johan raised the critical point about not having sex until you are ready to be a parent.

 

That is infact the natural order of things.We should technically maybe only have sex 1-4 times in our lifetime, with the purpose to have 1-4 children (as example)

 

We all make a fatal error at the first stage of "sex" by regarding it as something to be done for pleasure as well as having children.Infact this basic misconception at this fundamental level, creates all the problems that follow.

DaN, while I like your logic (for it is very sound and true) I don't think we will get very far if we simply tell everyone that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure.

[veginator]

Johan raised the critical point about not having sex until you are ready to be a parent.

 

That is infact the natural order of things.We should technically maybe only have sex 1-4 times in our lifetime, with the purpose to have 1-4 children (as example)

 

We all make a fatal error at the first stage of "sex" by regarding it as something to be done for pleasure as well as having children.Infact this basic misconception at this fundamental level, creates all the problems that follow.

DaN, while I like your logic (for it is very sound and true) I don't think we will get very far if we simply tell everyone that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure.

 

What logic? Logic involves either: 1) drawing a logical conclusion from things you know or assume are true (deductive reasoning), or 2) presenting evidence that relates to whether a claim appears to be true or not (inductive reasoning). DaN has not done either one; he's just made the claim that it's "the natural order of things" to have "sex" (heterosexual intercourse) only 1-4 times in a lifetime, and that sex is purely for the purpose of procreation rather than pleasure. No logical arguments or evidence were presented.

 

DaN, is there even one human society in which people on average have sex that infrequently? Has there ever been one? I'm not aware of any, and if there aren't any, how does it make sense to say that this is a "natural" frequency?

 

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that at some point in the past this was typical and only more recently has sex become more common, I can't think of a single animal species where there's sexual reproduction in which sexual intercourse occurs as infrequently as 1-4 times over a span of decades, as you're suggesting is "natural" for humans. Most adult sexually reproducing animals have intercourse multiple times per year, generally during a small part of the year when they're fertile, but definitely a lot more often overall than you're claiming is natural for humans. In fact, our closest living relatives, bonobo and common chimpanzees, appear to have sex at least as frequently if not a lot more frequently than people in modern human societies do.

[veganmomma]

Johan raised the critical point about not having sex until you are ready to be a parent.

 

That is infact the natural order of things.We should technically maybe only have sex 1-4 times in our lifetime, with the purpose to have 1-4 children (as example)

 

We all make a fatal error at the first stage of "sex" by regarding it as something to be done for pleasure as well as having children.Infact this basic misconception at this fundamental level, creates all the problems that follow.

DaN, while I like your logic (for it is very sound and true) I don't think we will get very far if we simply tell everyone that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure.

Only have sex for procreation? Most people ain't listening and it ain't gonna happen. At least not in the US.

[auburnoutlook]

if MLK's mother had savegly slaughtered her unborn child we may still be segragated

this is funny to me cause' if king's murderer had been aborted, than he would still be around. its all a cycle and we should all strive to make choices that feel like the best all around option. i suppose that sometimes abortion may be that choice. the abortion discussion leaves me feeling that so many men and women are burning bridges theyve never crossed and may never have to come close to.

[veginator]

... if MLK's mother had savegly slaughtered her unborn child we may still be segragated.

 

Gee, and here all this time I thought the Civil Rights Movement was a social movement involving millions of people. Silly me. Now I know, thanks to your insightful historical analysis, that it was all the work of one person who somehow was uniquely genetically designed to take on an entire racist society all by himself.

[vivalasvegans]

AND the point goes to Veginator!

 

 

 

 

Back to the topic of this thread -

 

 

 

I think it would be a pity if McCain/Palin won, reproductive rights were retracted at whatever speed in the US because of their party stance, and we all end up being forced to live Jerry Springer lifestyles like the Palin family.

 

"But my mama wouldn't tell me how to not get a baby inside me, so I believed my man when he said I should just jump up and down after we played his favorite naked game!"

[VeganDeVil]

"But my mama wouldn't tell me how to not get a baby inside me, so I believed my man when he said I should just jump up and down after we played his favorite naked game!"

[DaN]

 

Hey look, dont get me wrong, I engage in sex for pleasure as much as the next person!

 

 

Veginator: I am just pointing out that sex generally ends with male ejaculation.Which in turn results, in healthy conditions, inpregnation of the female.That is logic, fact & simple biology.

 

That is what sex is!

 

Making a woman take a pill or wrapping a piece of rubber around our penis is not exactly natural is it? Therefore when I say it is the natural order of things to only have sex in order to have a baby, I am again travelling within the path of logic, fact & simple biology.

 

Based on my opinion (and yes, it is only my opinion) we as couples should not really be having more than 4 children, due to overpopulation & dwindling resources.

 

Therefore technically we should only be engaging in sex very few times in our lifetime.

 

If we did that, it would make abortion a far less common event, & it is likely it would only occur in cases of rape, & when there is a concern over the mother or babies health.Abortion in those cases is generally more understood/accepted/acceptable by people.

[CollegeB]

There is far too much diversity for the nation as a whole to come to a single ruling/agreement/policy. At best the government should have no involvement in abortion whatsoever. I think a move to decentralize these policy decisions to the states would be favorable to having it distract from what the presidential office is turning into. The fewer rules in life forced on us, the better. Live free.

[Tarz]

It's good to be able to read a balanced debate on abortion - with a range of views - on a vegan forum and without people going totally nuts and also without the discussion degrading to the level where posters' who oppose abortion are informed that's it's a shame that they were not aborted themselves.

[Richard]

Based on my opinion (and yes, it is only my opinion) we as couples should not really be having more than 4 children, due to overpopulation & dwindling resources.

 

I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I just found this amusing, from a mathematical point of view If people have 4 kids per couple... I don't think that's going to combat overpopulation. To be certain that you will reduce the population, you need to have 1 kid as a maximum, although personally I'd go for 0

[DaN]

I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I just found this amusing, from a mathematical point of view If people have 4 kids per couple... I don't think that's going to combat overpopulation. To be certain that you will reduce the population, you need to have 1 kid as a maximum, although personally I'd go for 0

 

 

For sure, 4 would double our population, I am glad you noticed! My personal aim, & our aims in the western world should be as you say, 0, 1 or 2.

 

I am giving 4 as a possible figure because if we have 1 or 0, others could have 4 to even it up, if you see what I mean.Also in third world countries, where child mortality rates are higher, perhaps a little higher than 2 might be needed (africa for example)

 

 

People hate the idea of population control, or limits on children because they get all enrgaed by the thought that maybe their personal rights are being violated.Personally I would rather my government tell me I am only allowed 2 children, than my government do what they are now, which is exercising no control, & letting people have 5 children, when there is clearly a serious problem with overpopulation & exhaustion of planetary resources.

 

I read a report recently that suggested the current population could be supported sustainably by 3.5 planet earths... and we only got the one!

[xjohanx]

2 children per couple is probably for the best.

And I just wanted to echo what Tarz said. I like a lot of things about this forum and being able to discuss big issues (like abortion) without people resolving to personal attack is def one of them.

[DaN]

I like a lot of things about this forum and being able to discuss big issues (like abortion) without people resolving to personal attack is def one of them.

 

+1

[vegan4eva]

i am stunned by how easily munipulated americans are just beacuse abortion(murder)is legal dose that give you the right to kill the child. most abortions are from repater ie: woman who have had multiple killings(abortion) mabey this wouldnt be an issue if woman actualy had morals and stayed off there backs i also find interesting that it takes to to conceive but only 1 to terminate what rubbish a woman sould not have this power with out the father agreement. either way if you support abortion your not vegan and i dont care how u spin it tourture is torture regardless of speices. think of it you peta flantin lunatics would flip if these chemicals and slaughters were dumped upon you animals People at least have souls yet you justifing its killing. child is not concevied by accident. people argue what about rape? just beacuse you were mistreated still does not give you right to slaughter the Child if you have had an abortion have fun knowing your know different then a person who rapes and kills a child the only difference is it "legal for you to kill beacuse these bullcrap kill the innocent laws that allow abortion.

stop and think if you support abortion you are no better then folks who test chemicals on animals.

rethink yourself.

[VeganDeVil]

mistreated

That's an interesting take on rape. Gee, I hope I never get 'mistreated'.

[chrisjs]

most abortions are from repater ie: woman who have had multiple killings(abortion)

Others have already stated the repeat rate is very small. It it's not, please show your source.

mabey this wouldnt be an issue if woman actualy had morals and stayed off there backs

Yes that position should be illegal. Woman-on-top is much more moral.

i also find interesting that it takes to to conceive but only 1 to terminate what rubbish a woman sould not have this power with out the father agreement.

What the hell does the father have to do with this? What would he add' date=' some trace emotional component? This is about the rights of the unborn to develop vs. the right of the mother to control her own body. I really don't see how the father's opinion is significant, unless this is more an emotional issue.

either way if you support abortion your not vegan

As a vegan I try to avoid the suffering of animals as much as possible. That means that I don't eat them, I don't kill them for sport, I don't wear them, etc.

I fully believe in the possibility that there are some circumstances where aborting the fetus is the most ethical action. Therefore I cannot support a total ban on abortion. That does not make me not vegan.

People at least have souls yet you justifing its killing.

Ginger kids do not have souls.

if you have had an abortion have fun knowing your know different then a person who rapes and kills a child the only difference is it "legal for you to kill beacuse these bullcrap kill the innocent laws that allow abortion.

So they rape the fetus before aborting it? You are just being inflammatory.

[DaN]

^ I agree

 

Apart from:

 

What the hell does the father have to do with this? What would he add, some trace emotional component? This is about the rights of the unborn to develop vs. the right of the mother to control her own body. I really don't see how the father's opinion is significant, unless this is more an emotional issue.

 

This is the wrong viewpoint.If it was the man who had to carry the child, you can be damn sure the woman would still want a say in possible abortion.It should be an equal choice between the 2 parents.If you go on the basis that the woman carried the child, then the fathers right to any opinion throughout the childs life would not be "significant" as you put it.This is one the most basic examples of sexism, but because its against a male it is accepted.Just reverse the scenario & you will see what I am saying.

 

[chrisjs]

^ I agree

 

Apart from:

 

What the hell does the father have to do with this? What would he add, some trace emotional component? This is about the rights of the unborn to develop vs. the right of the mother to control her own body. I really don't see how the father's opinion is significant, unless this is more an emotional issue.

 

This is the wrong viewpoint.If it was the man who had to carry the child, you can be damn sure the woman would still want a say in possible abortion.It should be an equal choice between the 2 parents.If you go on the basis that the woman carried the child, then the fathers right to any opinion throughout the childs life would not be "significant" as you put it.This is one the most basic examples of sexism, but because its against a male it is accepted.Just reverse the scenario & you will see what I am saying.

 

I see what you are saying but I don't view it that way. At the point the child is born, the situation changes dramatically. No longer is the woman solely responsible for the burden of the child. If the mother and father are taking care of the young child, both their opinions should matter, but that's not the case in utero.

 

Changing it around to suppose the father carries the child doesn't change anything in my mind. The right of the fetus to grow and be born is absolutely massive and the only thing that can change that in my mind has to do with the "threat" the child makes on its carrier. The interests of outsiders who "want" the baby to be born pale in comparison to that of the child vs. the mother's body.

 

I would consider the possibility that finding a serious/terminal medical condition for the infant could also justify an abortion, but I think that would actually be done in the interest of the child, not against it. I don't know how to figure out who should be able to make such a determination, but I think the scenario is plausible enough that abortion, as a whole, cannot be outlawed.

 

Practically speaking, I think that abortions are absolutely horrible and in most cases a violation of the child's rights. Actually, I think they are *always* a violation of their rights, but in some fringe cases, I think such violation is the ethical choice.