Good way of debating, let's try, your opinion on abortion.

[Tanooki]

Great, now I'm going to be wondering if that's sarcasm or not.

I'm hoping it isn't. I've been working on that argument for a while now.


*edit* I've long had the feeling that people who feel there are no absolutes often still believe they would believe what is currently "good" even if they had lived in another time and place. Ie the same person who says abortions are ok because they're legal (and that isn't a strawman - I've heard people say it) would believe with all their heart they would have been anti-slavery had they lived 200 years ago in the South.

 

[BobCox2]

So forcing women to carry every pregnancy to birth is not slavery as well?

Also this one seems a bit off to me
Given: abortions happen after the point where the child could survive outside of the body
^
"Some" needs to be inserted here.
and " could survive outside of the body" needs help as well.
If thats your cut off you still need to define it.
Since infants are usually unable to coordinate sucking and swallowing before 34 weeks gestation, premature babys may have a feeding tube placed into the stomach. In very premature infants, nutrition may be given through a vein until the baby is stable enough to receive feedings by mouth. If the infant has breathing problems, a tube may be placed into the windpipe (trachea). A machine called a respirator will help the baby breathe. Oxygen is given.
Nursery care is needed until the infant reaches a stable body weight and is able to feed by mouth and maintain body temperature. In very small infants, other problems may complicate treatment and a longer hospital stay may be needed.
Prematurity used to be a major cause of infant deaths. Improved medical and nursing techniques have increased the survival of premature infants. A greater chance of survival is associated with increasing length of the pregnancy. Of babies born at 28 weeks, in the US approximately 90% survive.
Prematurity is not without long-term effects. Many premature infants have medical problems that continue into childhood or permanently. As a rule, the more premature an infant and the smaller the birth weight, the greater the risk of complications. It must be stressed, however, that it is impossible to predict the long-term outcome for an individual baby just on the basis of gestational age or birth weight.

So how late is too late in your opinion?

 

[Tanooki]

How on earth can you debate someone who doesn't know the difference between slavery and pregnancy?

 

[BobCox2]

I define Slavery as controlling another's body and other property.
You have another definition?

I think forcing all women to carry all pregnancies to birth by denying them the abortion rights would fit nicely, but I did not confuse the terms and I doubt you think I did.

 

[Tanooki]

My point was that it isn't as though every single abortion happens before the baby could survive without the mother. I've never once seen a reason for not banning partial birth abortions, except that it would place a restriction on abortion.

By your definition we're all slaves. Pregnant women just have one more "slavery" attached to them compared to the rest of us. You're diluting the word "slave" to where it's a meaningless word.

 

[BobCox2]

How so?

You seem to be dodging my question.

At what stage of pregnancy do the potential rights of the Baby to be born override the Mother-to-be's rights to control of her body?

I gave you some hint's as to how I think you might make your argument with the information on Premature births.

 

[Tanooki]

We have no right to refuse taxes, right? Slaves. Some people went to jail. Slaves. We were forced to attend school. Slaves. Some people are forced to pay child support. Slaves.

Some people were kidnapped from their home country and taken half way around the world - many died on the journey - and were forced to work their whole life for people who believed they were subhuman. Their children were also forced into this way of life. Slaves.

Most of us only count the last group as slaves. It's the "non diluted" definition.

Your second question betrays your bias. Without stating any "givens" (like I've listed above) you've phrased the question to assume quite a few givens. Try rewording it, or first listing your givens, like I did.

*edit* Unfortunately it's midnight, and being a good parent, I have to get up in the morning to rear my daughter so my pregnant wife can go to work. (My first son is due end of June!)

 

[BobCox2]

So all the ancient Roman and Greeks slaves that don't meet all your qualifiers don't count?
Any Slave that is freed at any later point was never a slave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave Read the first sentence.
"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others."
Sounds more like my definition than yours, and forced labor really fits here :whistling:

Meh - your still dodging the question as to the Given in your argument I asked about in my first response to it.

Not that I have not seen this kind of response from you before

http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7002381&postcount=72

Of course the reason is that your one of those to whom "Every Sperm is Sacred" and you would force all woman to carry all pregnancies to birth and deny all abortions.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6919903&postcount=78

 

[Glurin]

At what stage of pregnancy do the potential rights of the Baby to be born override the Mother-to-be's rights to control of her body?

Its not about one persons "rights" overriding another's. Its about ending one innocent life to make another person's life just a little bit easier, even though the hardship is a direct consequence of the decisions of the later. In general, societies tend to frown on killing others who are no threat to you just because they made some aspect of your life more difficult. Especially when the "life more difficult" part is your own damn fault.

 

[PFSS]

My point was that it isn't as though every single abortion happens before the baby could survive without the mother. I've never once seen a reason for not banning partial birth abortions, except that it would place a restriction on abortion.

Given it was your first point you sure seemed to imply that it was the norm rather than the exception. A very very small portion of abortions occur after ±21 weeks.

Of those many are for either for severe medical reasons or to remove a non-viable fetus.

The already small portion of late-term abortions gets smaller when abortions are more readily available.

"Partial Birth" abortions are not the only form of late-term abortions. A ban on 'partial birth' abortions would not actually prevent any abortions, though in some instances would place the woman having the abortion (possibly due to severe medical reasons) in increased risk and require more medical attention than would otherwise be necessary.

Of the various reasons a woman may choose a partial-birth abortion over other late term abortions, one is so that the would-be parents can have an intact corpse to grieve over.

 

[Johnny]

I've never once seen a reason for not banning partial birth abortions

What about when the mother is in danger and aborting the pregnancy would greatly reduce the risk to her or even save her life.

 

[stillman]

Tanooki, we have very different views. I uphold abortions due to the consequences of children being raised in terrible conditions. I think your heart is in the right place, but there are things to consider. You mention the child being able to 'survive outside the womb'. But what I am saying is that surviving is not enough. Children who don't get enough cognitive stimulation (for instance from being stored in a room most of their childhoods when foster parents abuse them) become cognitively impared. Even something as simple as an infant not recieving enough touching can cause them to lose weight and even die. It takes more than survival to create a fully functioning human being. It takes a tremendous energy investment for each child on top of the basic survival needs. I'm sure you are aware of all this being a parent yourself. I'm just saying removing abortions from the equation will definitely create thousands of developmentally delayed children and even some children who will die anyway. Some of the ones who live will need assistance for their entire adult lives.

So my question to you is: if you could prevent abortions from happening, does America (for instance) have the capacity to institutionalize all the mentally challenged children (and later adults) who cannot work or support themselves? In other words, who is going to deal with and pay for the consequences of removing abortions?

 

[Tanooki]

I'm guessing you aren't aware of what a partial birth abortion is. It means pulling the baby out, but right before it's fully out, you kill it while it's still legal.

So give me a single example of a situation where stopping to kill the baby saves the mother's life during delivery.

I find it interesting that no one's even attempting to argue based on my givens. Does that mean I win?

*edit* I'm guessing you get your info on foster care from TV. My parents have done foster care for almost all of my life.

Years from now, if killing the injured becomes the norm (no reason for hospitals) your question becomes just as valid.

 

[Johnny]

I find it interesting that no one's even attempting to argue based on my givens. Does that mean I win?

No it means every time someone asks you a question you counter with your own then you avoid all other questions like in this thread

So give me a single example of a situation where stopping to kill the baby saves the mother's life during delivery.

Maybe the baby is too big so she wont be able to deliver it normally and a c-section is not an option because the woman has suffered multiple hernia's in the abdominal membrane in the past.

My parents have done foster care for almost all of my life.

Yeah, and you turned out as a homophobic, bible thumping, bigot so having raised you is not the best merit.

 

[TheOgreMan]

I'm guessing you aren't aware of what a partial birth abortion is. It means pulling the baby out, but right before it's fully out, you kill it while it's still legal.

So give me a single example of a situation where stopping to kill the baby saves the mother's life during delivery.

I find it interesting that no one's even attempting to argue based on my givens. Does that mean I win?

*edit* I'm guessing you get your info on foster care from TV. My parents have done foster care for almost all of my life.

Years from now, if killing the injured becomes the norm (no reason for hospitals) your question becomes just as valid.

The child could be encephalitic, other abortion methods are rather invasive, or any number of other reasons where the fetus's head is larger than normal. The risks to the body and uterus are a lot lower with "partial-birth abortions" than other forms of abortion.

The fetus isn't a person yet and the procedure is almost exclusively done on fetuses under 21 weeks (the youngest surviving birth is slightly over 21 weeks, with many problems).

The government should really just supply, for free or greatly reduced cost, all sorts of birth control to anyone who wants it, regardless of age. That would cut down on the number of abortions right there.

 

[Johnny]

The government should really just supply, for free or greatly reduced cost, all sorts of birth control to anyone who wants it, regardless of age. That would cut down on the number of abortions right there.

Except that whenever a school starts handing out condoms and educate on safe sex then Tanooki and his ilk go raving mad. They prefer a system where you just tell children not to have sex then pretend they aren't.

 

[Tanooki]

I wonder if you guys even are aware of your own biases in your questions and statements.

For this thread, I'm going to refuse to answer any questions which imply givens without defining them.

I've defined mine. Either post your own givens or debate based on mine.

 

[Johnny]

Here's the example you asked for.

So give me a single example of a situation where stopping to kill the baby saves the mother's life during delivery.

Maybe the baby is too big so she wont be able to deliver it normally and a c-section is not an option because the woman has suffered multiple hernia's in the abdominal membrane in the past.

Now what?

 

[zodiac66]

Abortion is not birth control. If one does not want children, there is a plethora of options out there.

I do agree that there are instances that abortion is ok. Rape and incest mostly.

My son was not planned. I planned on going to law school. At first, I wanted to get rid of the parasite. I had an appointment to abort him. I could not go through with it. I knew in my heart I was a mommy.

I now have the best teenage son one could ever want.

 

[stephan]

I've defined mine. Either post your own givens or debate based on mine.

Your first 'given' doesn't really make any kind of sense (unless you mean to say that removing a fetus from the body that cannot survive outside of it is not abortion, which I very much doubt) so there is really not any point basing any argument on those.

That means you lose, BTW.