AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 So you agree that we should save the innocent when we can. were just arguing over Your 3 choices (1-2% differences)? Sure, that's reasonable, but I also understand that there are very difficult situations that people face in life, which is why I understand that in war there are collateral deaths, and while they break my heart I understand the realities of war. It also means that that I understand that rape is itself an act of war, and incestuous pregnancies most often times with very young or under aged girls from adult family members are acts of war, and the life of the mother...well there if you have to choose one you choose the one you're married too. Based on your statements in this topic: We hate the children and want them to die We hate those raped and want them to suffer We hate the mothers and want them to die. right? Ok, that's just laughable, and if you took that from anything I've said in this thread or in ANY other thread, then might I suggest a basic reading course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 And I still notice that you never addressed "collateral" death, and if you're ok with that then I'm not sure what to do with that. What a strange tangent. http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm#page180 "Broadly defined, collateral damage is unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces." I am not "ok" with collateral deaths. I am against collateral deaths. Do you know anyone who is pro-collateral death? I don't. However, if you can't understand the problems involved in incestuous pregnancies, rapes, and situations where giving birth will put the life of the mother at risk then I'm not sure what to do about that. I understand some of the issues. Not all, certainly. What I don't understand is why, in instances that the fetus is not causing harm, it should be held responsible for those problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 What a strange tangent.http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm#page180 "Broadly defined, collateral damage is unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces." I am not "ok" with collateral deaths. I am against collateral deaths. Do you know anyone who is pro-collateral death? I don't. And yet, do you know anyone who finds collateral deaths as an acceptable cost of war? You bet. So again, this isn't about being "pro-abortion" in the same way it's not about being "pro-collateral death", I wish that the abortion rate worldwide was at 0.0% in the same way that I wish the collateral death rate was at 0.0%, but I understand that there is a reality that brings about horrific trials. ---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:38 PM ---------- I understand some of the issues. Not all, certainly. What I don't understand is why, in instances that the fetus is not causing harm, it should be held responsible for those problems. And why should the rape victim, the young mother carrying her uncle's baby be held responsible for their sins? As for the life of the mother surely you'd agree that you choose the mother yes? I know I would in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Sure, that's reasonable, but I also understand that there are very difficult situations that people face in life, which is why I understand that in war there are collateral deaths, and while they break my heart I understand the realities of war. It also means that that I understand that rape is itself an act of war, and incestuous pregnancies most often times with very young or under aged girls from adult family members are acts of war, and the life of the mother...well there if you have to choose one you choose the one you're married too.Ok, that's just laughable, and if you took that from anything I've said in this thread or in ANY other thread, then might I suggest a basic reading course. So you didn't say the right doesnt care about children after they are born only the left has programs to help in the above post? So you didn't say we don't care if a woman was raped by the uncle (have the baby and suffer as you stare at it) So you didn't say we don't care if the womans health may be in danger (chose the mother yes)? i must have read it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 So you didn't say the right doesnt care about children after they are born only the left has programs to help in the above post?So you didn't say we don't care if a woman was raped or incest (have the baby and suffer as you stare at it) So you didn't say we don't care if the womans health may be in danger (chose the mother yes)? i must have read it wrong And yet...I know this is unbelievable to you...but you did read it wrong....because you said "hate". And what I said was that the Right wasn't willing to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I am Pro-Choice in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, but that doesn't mean that I am "for" anyone performing abortions. The health of the mother is the best pro-choice argument there is. Who feels it's ok to tell a woman they have to carry a baby that is going to kill them? As for rape, telling a woman she has to go through a pregnancy that is a daily reminder of what happened seems cruel as well, as does depriving the baby that would have resulted, of its life. That one I'm torn about. Incest gets lumped with rape, no need to expound on that. The question I have about those is what percent of abortions fall under these categories. The best I've been able to find is at this site. Their numbers are: Women who listed rape as the primary reason for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed rape as one of the reasons for their abortion: 1% Women who listed incest as the primary reason for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed incest as one of the reasons for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed health of the mother as the primary reason for their abortion: 4% Women who listed health of the mother as one of the reasons for their abortion: 12% So is it safe to say, ASF, that you're opposed to somewhere between 85 to 95 percent of the abortions that take place? Assuming these numbers are correct, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 What I don't understand is why, in instances that the fetus is not causing harm, it should be held responsible for those problems. Quoted for emphasis Only by denying it is a person can we justify executing them for anothers crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 And I still notice that you never addressed "collateral" death, and if you're ok with that then I'm not sure what to do with that.However, if you can't understand the problems involved in incestuous pregnancies, rapes, and situations where giving birth will put the life of the mother at risk then I'm not sure what to do about that. ---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:17 PM ---------- I've listed my three criteria. Then you're in favor of abortions in those cases. Not arguing against the criteria, just tired of hearing people saying "I'm pro-choice" and in the same conversation "I'm against people performing abortions". Just pick a stance, is what I try to tell people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 So is it safe to say, ASF, that you're opposed to somewhere between 85 to 95 percent of the abortions that take place? Assuming these numbers are correct, that is. Yep, that's pretty safe to say. I am 110% against abortion on demand and abortion as birth control. ---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:49 PM ---------- Quoted for emphasisOnly by denying it is a person can we justify executing them for anothers crime Fine, and again we're at the collateral damage argument. ---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 08:54 PM ---------- Then you're in favor of abortions in those cases. Not arguing against the criteria, just tired of hearing people saying "I'm pro-choice" and in the same conversation "I'm against people performing abortions". Just pick a stance, is what I try to tell people. No I'm not "in favor" in those cases, it's their choice. Find where in my argument I said that they HAD to perform an abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. This is why it's called CHOICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 No I'm not "in favor" in those cases, it's their choice. Find where in my argument I said that they HAD to perform an abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. This is why it's called CHOICE.A choice of what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I'm a woman, a lesbian, a mother of a daughter, and a grandmother of a granddaughter and I'm pro-reproductive freedom for women and whatever that entails including abortion services. That said, the latest GOP attack on any kind of healthcare that doesn't enrich the health insurance industry is a lock on the rise of infant mortality. Early and frequent prenatal care is the single most important tool in fighting infant mortality. Soon, the United States will be just like a third world country as regards infant mortality statistics due to the attack on healthcare. It's a fact, not to be denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 A choice of what, exactly? Ummmm.....is this a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 And yet, do you know anyone who finds collateral deaths as an acceptable cost of war? You bet. So again, this isn't about being "pro-abortion" in the same way it's not about being "pro-collateral death", I wish that the abortion rate worldwide was at 0.0% in the same way that I wish the collateral death rate was at 0.0%, but I understand that there is a reality that brings about horrific trials. I'll never accept this analogy. Abortions aren't unintentional. And why should the rape victim, the young mother carrying her uncle's baby be held responsible for their sins? Someone would have to be held responsible for the murder of the innocent life, too. I could accept a law that stated any ill that comes to the child, including its murder by abortion, is the responsibility of the rapist. If the attacker takes away the choice to have sex he also takes away responsibility. He would be on the hook for both rape and murder. As for the life of the mother surely you'd agree that you choose the mother yes? I know I would in a heartbeat. The life of the mother is a given. All along, I have made that clear. Of course a person should be able to act in self-defense (or the defense of another in the case of a doctor), even if the attacker is unaware of the harm they are causing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Ummmm.....is this a joke?No. What "choice" are you in favor of people having, in the criteria you propose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Ummmm.....is this a joke? Saying you're pro-choice is a dodge. Pro-choice to do what? Commit abortion. A person who is "pro-choice" wants people to be able to commit abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I'll never accept this analogy. Abortions aren't unintentional. And neither is most collateral damage, that's why there are collateral damage estimates, they know that innocent people are going to die, and yet they still bomb targets. It's not like they wake up surprised to the news that innocents died in a bombing raid. Someone would have to be held responsible for the murder of the innocent life, too. I could accept a law that stated any ill that comes to the child, including its murder by abortion, is the responsibility of the rapist. If the attacker takes away the choice to have sex he also takes away responsibility. He would be on the hook for both rape and murder. Fine by me. The life of the mother is a given. All along, I have made that clear. Of course a person should be able to act in self-defense (or the defense of another in the case of a doctor), even if the attacker is unaware of the harm they are causing. Agreed, it seems we are not as far away at it seemed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Well, that's just wrong. We all agree that the civilians in Iraq are people and children and yet 100,000+ of them have been killed in our war, and they are innocents. So, in the end it has nothing to do with what constitutes a person, or even an innocent person. Oh poppy****. You say Americans in general (and by extension military personnel) want innocent Iraqi's to die??? Frankly that is an insulting accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 No. What "choice" are you in favor of people having, in the criteria you propose? Ok, you know what, if you're going to spring a "gotcha" trap on me for the answer I give, I'd just rather you get to the point now and save us all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 And yet...I know this is unbelievable to you...but you did read it wrong....because you said "hate". And what I said was that the Right wasn't willing to do anything about it. ahh were nuancing again? Take out hate and put in "doesn't care about their pain suffering or death"? Is that still too much? So you believe there should be no abortion at all if there if no, rape incest or alien abduction. or the other 98%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Agreed, it seems we are not as far away at it seemed. Well, you're not the typical pro-choicer. You threw 98% of abortions under the bus right from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Saying you're pro-choice is a dodge. Pro-choice to do what? Commit abortion. A person who is "pro-choice" wants people to be able to commit abortions. It's NOT a dodge, the person has an actual CHOICE for the decision they can make, it IS a choice and no amount of saying it's not a choice will change that. See, this whole debate is coming down to an absurd debate on semantics. Fine, I'm Pro-Life except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother....there is that better? ---------- Post added April-16th-2011 at 09:10 PM ---------- Oh poppy****. You say Americans in general (and by extension military personnel) want innocent Iraqi's to die??? Frankly that is an insulting accusation. I NEVER once said they "want" innocents to die...NEVER and you can't prove anything otherwise, what I did say was that they see those deaths as acceptable, and I dare you to prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Ok, you know what, if you're going to spring a "gotcha" trap on me for the answer I give, I'd just rather you get to the point now and save us all the time.No "gotcha" trap on your criteria. I'm not arguing about when abortion is justified. I'm just asking for you to be non-weaselly about what you're in favor of people having a "choice" on.Mardigras got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 No "gotcha" trap on your criteria. I'm not arguing on when abortion is justified. I'm just asking for you to be non-weaselly about what you're in favor of people having a "choice" on. The choice to carry to term, or to seek an abortion in the specific cases I cited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 The health of the mother is the best pro-choice argument there is. Who feels it's ok to tell a woman they have to carry a baby that is going to kill them? As for rape, telling a woman she has to go through a pregnancy that is a daily reminder of what happened seems cruel as well, as does depriving the baby that would have resulted, of its life. That one I'm torn about. Incest gets lumped with rape, no need to expound on that.The question I have about those is what percent of abortions fall under these categories. The best I've been able to find is at this site. Their numbers are: Women who listed rape as the primary reason for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed rape as one of the reasons for their abortion: 1% Women who listed incest as the primary reason for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed incest as one of the reasons for their abortion: <.5% Women who listed health of the mother as the primary reason for their abortion: 4% Women who listed health of the mother as one of the reasons for their abortion: 12% So is it safe to say, ASF, that you're opposed to somewhere between 85 to 95 percent of the abortions that take place? Assuming these numbers are correct, that is. One caveat that you should note is that the health of the mothers reason includes nnt life threatening and even non physical health threatening reasons (such as increased chances of stress a new child could cause). The actual number of abortions for life or serious health effects is just a fraction of that 12%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 So is it safe to say, ASF, that you're opposed to somewhere between 85 to 95 percent of the abortions that take place? Assuming these numbers are correct, that is. Ask if ASF or people like him (like me) if they would be willing to sacrifice that "small percentage" to stop the other 85 to 95%? My answer is flat NO. When I see a law that reads: Abortion is not legal in cases other than: 1) serious health considerations. 2) Cases in which the pregnant woman did not or could not legally choose to engage in sexual contact without any need of a conviction of a guilty party. 3) Morning after pill (so that it's never even attempted to be banned as abortion). I'll most likely support it. Then again that would directly challenged roe v wade in front of the current court. I don't think politics will allow for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.