Abortionist shot dead

[alpha incipiens]

Saturos you are silly. I am sad that I even have to explain this to you.

The term "pro-choice" does not sugar-coat anything but instead accurately describes the stance; that is, a woman's choice to control what happens to her body. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks of an abortion as a good and happy thing that every pregnant woman should have (as the term "pro-abortion" would imply). Perhaps I've already lost you, and you've begun your response about how anyone who is pro-choice must think that abortions are splendid things.

But on the off chance that I haven't, let me further explain: a pro-choice stance has little to do with the morality of abortion, or when a fetus can be classified as alive. Being pro-choice means that you feel the government has no right to tell anyone, man or woman, that they must put their life or even health at risk for the sake of someone else's life. Pregnancy is not risk-free, and women still die from complications during pregnancy or labor; beyond that, there are a myriad of health problems that can arise even after giving birth. Since technology has not advanced to the point that an underdeveloped fetus can be removed from the mother without killing it in the process, it's just tough luck. To reiterate my earlier argument: it's the same reason we don't treat people as walking organ cultivators. If we did, we'd have a lot fewer people dying from failed kidneys, but hey, tough luck for them too. I hate abortions as much as the next person, but I think that a government which forces its people to put someone else's life above their own is far more abhorrent than one that allows abortions.

 

[repiV]

morality shouldnt play a part in the decision making process because every case is different

What decision making process?

this is such a idiotic myth desiminated by anti abortion pundits. I've heard it all throughout highschool that it's a form of "birth control" when the in reality it would make a poor birth control, or the best birth control ever ..even a single abortion can cause significant scarring of the uterus making getting pregnant again a challenge at best. Also many of the people who have abortions do so because there is no alternative. and dont use the adoption solution because who are you to force someone to carry an unwanted pregancy to term JUST to satisfy your morality. you/society have no say in this whatsoever

First of all, I said it's used as a lifestyle choice, not as a form of birth control. They decide they don't want the baby - for no reason other than they don't want it - and get an abortion. That's a lifestyle choice.

Secondly, you're continually failing to comprehend basic things I say. I swear you must just foam at the mouth in a torrent of righteous indignation and start bashing the keyboard spastically whenever someone holds a differing opinion to you on anything, otherwise you would clearly note that I don't think abortion should be illegal. So WTF are you on about forcing anybody to carry an unwanted pregnancy?

They can do what they want (but not from my wallet), it doesn't make it RIGHT.

you're going to have to prove that in the majority of cases it's due to an inconvenience

If it's not for a sound medical reason, or as a result of rape, then it's due to an inconvenience. Simple as, really.

? why are you associating abortion with infidelity?

I'm not associating abortion with infidelity. I'm giving you two examples of things that are legal and should remain so, but which are also wrong.

It concerns me that you can't seem to tell the difference between legality and morality. The law should never, ever be used as an indication of right and wrong.

but I thought you were against governemtn intervention? so they should ask why they want an abortion? why is it their business?

It's entirely reasonable to have to justify the use of public funds. It's their business because they are paying for it. If you want a no questions asked abortion then you can damn well pay for it.

and people like you who have NO IDEA yet think their opinion matters in any way, encouraging others to follow suit. look, there is no middle ground. because if there were "an ideal scenario where abortion is permissible under a strict set of rules" back alley abortions would STILL be performed putting both mother and baby in jeopardy. it must be abortion for all, no questions asked. anything else would be based on morality and put people at unnecessary risk

You're preaching to the choir because as I've said numerous times, abortion shouldn't be illegal. But I shouldn't have to pay for it. If the abortions are available but they're not willing or able to find the money, then choose to maul themselves with a coathanger, tough. Nobody was stopping them from making their own choices. Unfortunately, choices also come with obligations. The choice to get knocked up results in the obligation of pregnancy. The choice to get an abortion results in the obligation to pay for it.

On a slightly grander scale, this exemplifies everything that's wrong with our handout society. The consequences of people's actions are taken away when the government will step in and sort everything out for you. So we have a nation of children who never grow up and can't take care of themselves.

yes, well most jurisdictions it is payed out of pocket UNLESS the mother's life is in danger. so what's your problem? you dont pay for it anyways

That's not the case in this country.

 

[Eejit]

The cost to the taxpayer in child benefits, tax breaks etc. would be far higher than that of performing an abortion, so that argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[CptStern]

What decision making process?

whether to get an abortion or not

First of all, I said it's used as a lifestyle choice, not as a form of birth control.

what exactly do you mean by "lifestyle" choice? be specific because it sounds like you're saying the life style choice = birth control through abortion. what else could it mean in that context?

They decide they don't want the baby - for no reason other than they don't want it

bullshit, do you really think it's that easy? that the people who make that decision dont do so with a heavy conscious? really, you're just whiping up a fanciful tale to suit your pov. it couldnt possibly be as simple as not "wanting a baby because they dont want one" it's still their child, it's still their offspring. if it were that simple, people would do as you implied: use abortion as a means of birth control.

- and get an abortion. That's a lifestyle choice.

every single decision we make, is fundamentally a "lifestyle choice". your point holds no weight

Secondly, you're continually failing to comprehend basic things I say. I swear you must just foam at the mouth in a torrent of righteous indignation and start bashing the keyboard spastically whenever someone holds a differing opinion to you on anything, otherwise you would clearly note that I don't think abortion should be illegal. So WTF are you on about forcing anybody to carry an unwanted pregnancy?

look, the problem is that you have a simple superficial understanding of the issues around abortion. first of all you think it's morally wrong. period, but agree the government has no right telling people what to do. so you're more against government interference with our personal lives than a supporter of abortion as a necessary procedure. you just see it as a procedure of convienence rather than a fundamental right

They can do what they want (but not from my wallet), it doesn't make it RIGHT.

because you disagree with abortion on moral grounds but agree it should be legal. check

If it's not for a sound medical reason, or as a result of rape, then it's due to an inconvenience. Simple as, really.

no it's only simple because you paint it that way. explain "sound" medical reason. explain "as a result of a rape" does date rape count? what about spousal rape? what about probablity of low survival rate?, what about probability of mental or physical handicap in an undetermined degree of severity from a scale of 1 to 100? explain your reasoning why any other number of reasons make it justifiable or not. actually, no, wait a minute. lets not do that because it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THEIR BODIES!!! ..if they want an abortion for x reason, then go ahead because it's none of your business. if they want to have an abortion as a form of birth control then go right ahead, it's none of your/our/anybody's business. your tax dollars pay for abortion PERIOD. not abortion under x set of circumstances. you are in no position to judge who is fit to be aborted or not. hell put me in that position and I'd be advocating for MORE abortions!!! abortions FOR ALL!

I'm not associating abortion with infidelity. I'm giving you two examples of things that are legal and should remain so, but which are also wrong.

no, you are giving an implausible fabricated scenario credence to support your pov

It concerns me that you can't seem to tell the difference between legality and morality. The law should never, ever be used as an indication of right and wrong.

I know the difference well enough. in fact I've gone out of my way to prove it must be free of morality in this particular issue

It's entirely reasonable to have to justify the use of public funds. It's their business because they are paying for it. If you want a no questions asked abortion then you can damn well pay for it.

so on what basis should they deny/grant abortion? .......moral grounds? which morals? I can tell you right here and now what grounds they give: NONE whatso ever because there's something far more important at stake here: Litigation. the hospitals and doctors in general are terrified of lititation, bad publicity or anything negative that could possibly at some point in time epose them to litigation. They'll give the bare minimum to cover themselves but that's it. that's all it can be or else face the possibility that someone somewhere had a change of heart due to some moral ground and decides they want to open pandoras box.

You're preaching to the choir because as I've said numerous times, abortion shouldn't be illegal.

but the criteria as to who gets what should be left to people to decide based on amoral code that itself is based on religious ideology. check

But I shouldn't have to pay for it. If the abortions are available but they're not willing or able to find the money, then choose to maul themselves with a coathanger, tough. Nobody was stopping them from making their own choices. Unfortunately, choices also come with obligations. The choice to get knocked up results in the obligation of pregnancy. The choice to get an abortion results in the obligation to pay for it.

and bottom line it's tough that that life is not worth the $300 the government would have to shell out for the procedure. I guess your value of human life stops at $300

On a slightly grander scale, this exemplifies everything that's wrong with our handout society. The consequences of people's actions are taken away when the government will step in and sort everything out for you. So we have a nation of children who never grow up and can't take care of themselves.

spoken like someone who only has a rudimentary and superficial understanding of the iissue at hand

That's not the case in this country.

ok then. now explain why you have a say as to whether someone gets an abortion or not. also explain on what grounds the decision to grant/deny the abortion lies

 

[VirusType2]

It's the preferred term because they don't want to feel guilty, and the term is all marshmallows and sugar to soften the cold, hard, blunt truth, but maybe many people actually do think "pro-choice" is the right thing for the woman's sake.
What I think is right is not what someone else thinks is right.

Sure, I do agree there are circumstances where abortion is necessary, but even those instances I approve of is still depressing.

What's wrong is wrong imo, even if I was a woman and was stuck in a position where I had to do it.
Sometimes there is a need for a necessary evil, but what I hate is when people try to whitewash everything to make it easier to accept.

pro-choice = pro-abortion

You can put a coat of gold plating on shit and try to pass it off as pure gold, but it's still shit and sometimes yes, people do get stuck in "shit" situations.
I really don't give a damn about political correctness. I see things for what they are. It's f**king pro-abortion and that's that.

That's how I roll. It's my opinion. Like it or not.

Sigh. People think humans are so special. Yeah, were the most intelligent species on the planet. Great. That's great, but does that really make us better than other species? Humans are just mammals.

Personally, I think all creatures are equally important. And, it's true I put human life before that of cattle and chickens, but you ****ers munching down animals daily and crying about killing a fertilized egg. An egg that a fertile woman produces every month. It's not a baby. It's not a fetus. It's a fertilized egg.

When you can implant the DNA of another human into that egg, apply bolt of electricity to it, it will fertilize that egg. It doesn't seem so special anymore does it?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I really don't see why you're arguing with repiv, Stern. It's like you two just have a feud and this argument has been shoe-horned into that.
I disagree with a lot of what repiv believes in, but he's saying that he doesn't think abortion should be illegal, so anything beyond that on his part can be nothing more than mild coercion or encouragement.

Turning each other's posts into walls of quotes is silly. As someone else said to me just recently, you're more likely to take things out of context if you do that.
Of course it seems to be the case that if a post doesn't contain a lot of quotes, and is simply an interesting and reasoned response (e.g. Alpha Incipiens) then it will be ignored.

I found Virus' post quite interesting. I was expecting it to be one of those "Humans are insignificant and we suck etc." but it actually made an interesting point.

Is an embryo really that much more important than a cow? I THINK NOT. It's hard to break that mentality though. People always have a tendency towards "siding with their own kind".


edit: On the matter of Saturos. Maybe we're getting too much into the semantics of the word. In a sense I am pro-abortion. I accept that it is necessary and beneficial even, and so I think that yes it should be allowed. But as I said, the connotations of "pro-abortion" just give off the wrong impression. I think you use it to be provocative. But that's really not what we need, because when people throw around language like that (Indeed, most of your posts have been brimming with emotive words), then you end up with some nutter who shoots a man dead in a church.

And I should clarify that I don't think emotion is a bad thing. Being emotive is good, but I think you're giving the... emotional initiative to the wrong party. In the choice between a grown, thinking woman and an incomplete human that doesn't even know it exists (And they don't), then the woman should be given the support in this matter. Her body, her life and her state of mind are more important.

 

[VirusType2]

I found Virus' post quite interesting. I was expecting it to be one of those "Humans are insignificant and we suck etc." but it actually made an interesting point.

Is an embryo really that much more important than a cow? I THINK NOT. It's hard to break that mentality though. People always have a tendency towards "siding with their own kind".

Well, thanks, I wasn't sure of the reaction I would get.

Another point I'll make is that in nature, countless species eat their own offspring.

 

[CptStern]

I really don't see why you're arguing with repiv, Stern. It's like you two just have a feud and this argument has been shoe-horned into that.

we're responding to each other's posts addressed to each other. I dont see the harm. and yes this is ongoing as it touches on many of the things we usually agrue about like government intervention and morality

I disagree with a lot of what repiv believes in, but he's saying that he doesn't think abortion should be illegal, so anything beyond that on his part can be nothing more than mild coercion or encouragement.

I have no problem with someone having a different opinion however that doesnt preclude that person from having to defend their opinion. that's what debating and by extension, the politics forum is for

Turning each other's posts into walls of quotes is silly. As someone else said to me just recently, you're more likely to take things out of context if you do that.

I dont see how, as we're answering specific points rather than taking his entire post as a whole

Of course it seems to be the case that if a post doesn't contain a lot of quotes, and is simply an interesting and reasoned response (e.g. Alpha Incipiens) then it will be ignored.

this is not entirely true. however, you get more flies with shit than honey. that's cliche for a reason.

the problem with well reasoned responses (unless directed at someone in particular) is that most of us agree with the poster ..so responding to his post is nothing more than giving the person a pat on the back and while there's nothing wrong with that we need to saturos, the unzeros and the repiv's (I apologise for lumping you in with the troglodytes but it serves to illustrate the point) to spice up this board a bit because everyone agreeing with each other makes for a dull discussion

 

[alpha incipiens]

I think the problem with arguing with repiV on the matter is that he doesn't feel abortions should be illegal. Being pro-choice means that you feel women have a choice as to whether or not they feel abortions are immoral and whether they would get one if pregnant; it does not mean that everyone needs to hold the same opinion. If repiV thinks that abortions are unethical except under specific circumstances, then there is nothing wrong with that opinion as long as he doesn't attempt to force it on someone else. People should be allowed to dislike abortions. People shouldn't be allowed to determine what happens to someone else's body. Simple as.

Edit: I should also add that while regarding the matter of abortions, there's really no way to determine who is right or wrong. There is no definitive answer as to when the fetus can be classified as "alive"; just because I feel it isn't alive until a certain point doesn't mean that someone else's viewpoint is incorrect, especially because I am not a doctor (I just play one on the internet). It's doubtful that a consensus will ever be reached in the medical community, so I think that it's fair to say that people can have differing opinions on the matter. There is no correct answer.

 

[CptStern]

but he says we shouldnt have to pay for abortion (in a system of free healthcare) because it's fundamentally wrong. he just agrees we shouldnt make it illegal. this part I can agree with. not funding it out of moral resons I cant agree to. morality should play no part in it, because my moral vbalues may not be the same as someone elses and really it's none of my business

 

[alpha incipiens]

The question of funding is a tricky one; denying funding simply because some people consider abortion to be immoral doesn't quite sit right with me. I think the most sound counter-argument on the matter is Eejit's: that an abortion is less costly to taxpayers than an unwanted child.

 

[CptStern]

The question of funding is a tricky one;

especially in a country where healthcare is free

denying funding simply because some people consider abortion to be immoral doesn't quite sit right with me. I think the most sound counter-argument on the matter is Eejit's: that an abortion is less costly to taxpayers than an unwanted child.

it's not the cost. it's never the cost but rather the moral implications. these same people have NO problem spending billions on eradicating iraqis

 

[alpha incipiens]

I think it should be the cost. With an issue so morally vague as abortion, the government should not make a definitive answer for either side. When an abortion costs taxpayers less than supporting an unwanted child, the responsible answer is to offer both options.

 

[CptStern]

the cost of abortion is really minimal. in canada it's on average $800. the cost to the system to raise an unwanted child not too mention one with emotional, mental and or physical problems is much much higher than that

 

[VirusType2]

Well, me and my girlfriend both paid half. And I went with her and her mom to the free health clinic or something. I think it was $100 total, maybe $200 tops.

We were both under age and I had got her pregnant on the first time meeting. We were kids. And I was in love with someone else for a couple years prior to that. And I didn't have a job.

Anyway, we ended up staying together for a few years and nearly got married. How was I to know this, when at the time I had just met her and was in love with someone else.

I regret the abortion all the time. I'll never get over it, ever.

But we all make decisions in life, and I wouldn't want to take away freewill from anyone just because I feel I made the wrong choice.

And who knows how my life would have been better or worse had I made a different choice.

 

[Saturos]

In conclusion, I don't think abortion is good, but there are unfortunate circumstances where it's unavoidable. I just feel sorrow for them for not having a chance at life.

Then again, our world is not the best place to be right now anyways, but who am I to speak for everyone?