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

[Johnny]

See this is why I love Tanooki. he gets force feed his morals and just takes it all down, barely even knowing why. That's why he with a straight face can say things like that *** marriage threatens straight marriage.

Or when we debated the age of the earth. The bible says that the earth is 5000 years old and he believes that because it's you know. From the bible. The book with the talking burning bush, the dude with the boat that took on every single animal species in the entire world then keept them afloat as the entire world was drowned (never mind the fact that other cultures has no record of this) and the man that lived in the whale. All of this makes sense to him.

But when someone brings up carbon dating and uses that as evidence to prove that the earth is billions of years old. Then all of a sudden he gets all scientific about it.

The world used to be a few million years old. That was a fact. Then it was decided that didn't allow enough time for evoution. So now it's billions of years old. (Luckily we've found some rocks and asked them how old they were, and they confirmed about 3 billion years old.) Of course, if we ever find that the atmosphere in prehistoric times didn't allow as many cosmic rays in, Carbon14 dating will be completely debunked.

But the world being created in 6 days by an invisible omnipotent being that then RESTED. That makes perfect sense and mankind is the result of a few thousand years of inbreedings starting with 2 humans.

 

[krischan]

I haven't read the postings in here, but I doubt that anything new has been posted since the last thread about that issue. This is like necroing an old thread, but without the benefit of having all the old postings which most probably cover 99% of what has been said in here, except for the insults which people will throw at each other.

 

[Lazer LXXVII]

I think it should be legal, but it should be taken very seriously and be used as a last resort.

There are far too many children that miss out on love from their parents. For example if two teenagers have a child together, there literally no way that they can take care of the kid and raise it in a normal loving house. Neither of them have solid jobs, both of them have school, and chances are they both still live with their parents. Or another example, a rape victim, it would be a very painful experience raising a child that came from that circumstance.

I feel like it should be legal, but not thrown around lightly, its very serious, and very sad, but what i believe is even more sad is having a child being raised in an abnormal home and being brought into a dysfunctional family, then having an abnormal childhood, leading into psychological problems in their adulthood. Those people suffer a lifetime.

(Though i know its not the case every time, sometimes they live better lives than the average person. But im speaking on a general note.)

 

[zodiac66]

So why are two teens who are not able to take responsibility for their actions having sex? Have they not been taught any sort of morals?

IMO any teen who has a child and cannot support it without welfare needs to have the baby taken and given to a home that can support it. If the parents of the unwed mother will provide 100% of the child's care, by all means, they can attempt and fail at raising the child. No state aid to them whatsoever.

Quite frankly, I am tired of paying for all these bastard kids. I know families that can't get health insurance for their kids but some unwed teen gets it. Where is the logic in that? It infuriates me when I see some skanky teen with a baby..dressed in designer clothes and pulling out her foodstamp card.

Take the children from the unwed mothers who cannot independently support them.

 

[Johnny]

So why are two teens who are not able to take responsibility for their actions having sex?

For fun like everybody else. Sometimes accidents happen or the parents fail to educate their kids on safe sex and helping them get proper birth control like condoms.

 

[Glurin]

So why are two teens who are not able to take responsibility for their actions having sex? Have they not been taught any sort of morals?

What kind of talk is that!? Everyone knows morals will just undermine society and cause nothing but misery. How could you even suggest teaching these things to children of all people? :crazyeyes:

Take the children from the unwed mothers who cannot independently support them.

Don't know that I'd want to go quite that far. I agree that she should be getting little to no government aid though.

 

[BobCox2]

:jig:

I haven't read the postings in here, but I doubt that anything new has been posted since the last thread about that issue. This is like encoring an old thread, but without the benefit of having all the old postings which most probably cover 99% of what has been said in here, except for the insults which people will throw at each other.

Dang - I got popcorn and came back and got to quit.
:-(

P.S. so just as a last general statement:
Mistakes get made, and unmade.
They can also be prevented.
Someone has to pay for them.
I favor a cheap cost.
With this issue standards of measurement may vary.

They involve standards of measurement about killing people vs Animal.
and moral stricture about the Right way of defining and defending of people by people, including the ritual Cannibalism of the Mass.

PPPS:Sorry it took a while to get but it's wholly corn.

 

[phool]

I'm on the most extreme end of the pro-abortionists. Abortion, as long as it's performed relatively early, is morally perfectly acceptable even as a form of tardy birth control. This is essentially due to my not treating an unconscious life-potential as deserving of the respect afforded to a human - or even animal - life. A 5 week fertilised egg is no more sacred than a puddle of sperm on a floor. Sometimes it seems the pro-choice vs pro-life debate gets waylayed when generally the issue comes down to simply; at what point does a fetus become deserving of treating as a human life? Given one person's belief in this area I find the attitude typically perfectly understandable and addressing the resultant view rather than the causal understanding mostly self-defeating.

Having said that, abortion does carry with it serious practical risks to the mother and should limited to being a last resort.

 

[BobCox2]

As A PSA Can I point out Prevention Again?
Oops
How hard Do Most Guys Think Girls think about this?
Whats the success rate of Birth control measures and how many are used?
I'm changing the subject.
I guess My Opinion is we correct fallacy's on that subject.

 

[phool]

A more mature approach to education from the get go would be a good start in preventation - blanket simplification appears to cause a lot of confusion in people who really should know better. Condoms are 100% effective, given they are used correctly and do not break. Pre-cum contains no viable sperm, making the pull-out method entirely effective if not having sex twice in a row without urinating or w/e in between. And so on. Let's not even talk about the absurd abstinence programs which apparently have such bizarre results as kids practicing anal sex to preserve virginity(!).

Realistically though, even outside the pro-choicer's favourite extreme case-study of the raped, accidental pregnancy is inevitable however well educated those involved may be, short of a drastic cultural shift.

 

[BobCox2]

So we start with a Phool recommending the pull out method as "entirely effective" birth control and pre-come as OK?
Where are the Lady's?

 

[BobCox2]

Tiger attack!
Meh lets take this topic here.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7113580&postcount=1

 

[PFSS]

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.

The head is collapsed to allow for the fetus to be removed without dilating the cervix more than required. They don't 'stop to kill' the fetus for the sake of it but because it allows the procedure to be carried out putting the woman at as little risk as possible.

Any circumstance where the woman's life/health would be in danger from carrying the fetus to term would qualify as an example for your question - if they did not do a so called 'partial birth' abortion then they would just do a D&E abortion.

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

Ok, I'll play.

Given: abortions happen after the point where the child could survive outside of the body

You're talking about ±1.4% of abortions, which would be reduced if earlier abortions were more freely available. Given you dismiss minority cases of abortion from the argument - i.e. the rape case, we can also dismiss this minority case of abortion from the argument too. You also seem unconcerned what portion of those uncommon abortions are due to severe medical conditions - which would normally result in no baby in the end in any case.

Given: studies show that adopted children (at least as babies) do VERY well in life

This assumes that there are sufficient families to adopt a steady stream of a million or so extra children a year. But that aside - this point appears to stem from the extreme minority case you highlight above, which by your own reasoning can be dismissed from the argument.

Given: except in extreme cases, almost every decision to have an abortion was started by a conscious decision to have sex (or are we going to argue that the millions of abortions were mostly rape victims?)

Good to see you're happy to dismiss extreme cases from the debate - lets dismiss the so-called 'partial birth' abortions from the debate then. Or even all late term abortions.

Given: we don't condone the killing of other people - even if making it legal makes it less messy (ie murder happens all the time, but we don't make it legal because of all the botched murders)

This assumes that the fetus is a person, which is not a given.

Given: people dying of natural causes and being killed are not comparable in any way shape or form

Fair enough.

Given: slavery was once considered "ok" and was definitely legal

Fair enough.

Given: the future judges us on their standards, not our own

This makes a pretty big assumption on the future if you're using it to back up your case, which is not a given.

 

[TheOgreMan]

A more mature approach to education from the get go would be a good start in preventation - blanket simplification appears to cause a lot of confusion in people who really should know better. Condoms are 100% effective, given they are used correctly and do not break. Pre-cum contains no viable sperm, making the pull-out method entirely effective if not having sex twice in a row without urinating or w/e in between. And so on. Let's not even talk about the absurd abstinence programs which apparently have such bizarre results as kids practicing anal sex to preserve virginity(!).

You are vastly misinformed. For one: no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective. Condoms are only rated at I think 90-93% effective? Birth control pills are usually around 95%. For two: pre-ejaculate material does indeed carry viable sperm; the pull-out method is not effective in the least.

I really hope you were not being serious with this post, though.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Condoms are only rated at I think 90-93% effective?

Well, he said assuming correct use and no breakage. The problem is, they do break, which is where your number comes from.

Birth control pills are usually around 95%.

Higher.

95% would mean that 1 in 20 women on the pill will get pregnant in a year's time, which is way too many unless the women in question don't read the instructions and are only taking them every other day or something.

the pull-out method is not effective in the least.

My health teacher used to say that they had a nickname to describe guys who used the pull-out method:

He said they call them "Fathers".

:crazyeyes:

 

[Velhic]

Here is some examples of why people get abortions and how it isn't bad:

"Teenage girl get's raped by her stepfather, she then is pregnant. Should that child be her first?"

"Some girl goes to a bar, brings a guy home (bowchicka bow wow) she get's pregnant, what are the chances she will actually want the baby? Should it suffer a life of not being wanted by it's parents?"

 

[Ariadne]

What's funny aswell as not very bright is that some people in here actually think that anyone would consider abortion as a method of birth control.

Of course it isn't and it has never been designed for that. It is however very wise for people who do not want to have a baby and did get pregnant after all, to have it removed.

As someone here clearly pointed out, no method of birth control is 100% foolproof. If you use birthcontrol, that is a clear signal you do not want to have children and the responsibility that goes with it. Do people who use birthcontrol have to be forced to raise a child they don't want?

There are already enough of unhappy, not really wanted children out there who quite often grow up in unhappy, unwanted adults.

Abortion is not something anyone takes lightly, not even a teenager who wasn't thinking when there was sex, and I don't think it's something people consider to be a birth control method...

 

[Johnny]

no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective.

Too bad the teaching of abstinence is 0% effective in preventing people from having sex, However having abstinence programs instead of proper sex education does increase the risks of pregnancy because it robs teens of the opportunity to be taught safe sex.

Which would actually make abstinence negative effective.

Condoms are 100% effective when used properly and use within their "best before date" the 99% on the label is just a liability thing.

 

[TheOgreMan]

Well, he said assuming correct use and no breakage. The problem is, they do break, which is where your number comes from.

Higher.

I'm actually going off of an old study that shows that natural latex is a porous material and there can be pores in intact condoms/gloves big enough for sperm to pass through. I checked up on it and the study has been shown to be untrue. Also, condoms are now "double dipped" so any pores in the latex are effectively eliminated. Even so, I do not believe condoms are 100% even if you are perfect. Close to it, but not perfect.

95% would mean that 1 in 20 women on the pill will get pregnant in a year's time, which is way too many unless the women in question don't read the instructions and are only taking them every other day or something.

Not quite. 95% just means 1 in 20 women have a chance to become pregnant in a year's time. Women are only fertile for like 3-4 days out of the month and even then the chances are pretty small. Also, admittedly I just guessed at the number since I don't have my handy drug insert with me. I know BC pills are more effective than condoms but less than 99%.

My health teacher used to say that they had a nickname to describe guys who used the pull-out method:

He said they call them "Fathers".

:crazyeyes:

I've heard that as well, lol.

To Johnny: Very true but don't think I am advocating abstinence only programs. They don't work.

 

[phool]

So we start with a Phool recommending the pull out method as "entirely effective" birth control and pre-come as OK?
Where are the Lady's?

You are vastly misinformed. For one: no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective. Condoms are only rated at I think 90-93% effective? Birth control pills are usually around 95%. For two: pre-ejaculate material does indeed carry viable sperm; the pull-out method is not effective in the least.

I really hope you were not being serious with this post, though.

I would never recommend or rely on the pull-out method. Merely pointing out, contrary to the implication a child leaving a sex education class is likely to have been given (that means you, fellows) pre-come does not contain viable sperm. Problems arrise from having sex multiple times in succession, of course failing to pull out, etc. Of course if you can back up your condescension with some sources[EDIT:NSFW, contains pictures of a penis. Sorry TheOgreMan] that's another matter entirely.

Condoms are only rated at I think 90-93% effective?

That rating is based on an average, not optimal, user, and takes into account breakages among other things. My 'given' wasn't thrown in to bulk up the post length. Not all condoms are made equal of course; organic condoms are more porous and less capable against STIs, for example.

This sort of well-meaning regurgitation of inferior sex education is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Is it really better to err on the side of caution than simply not err at all?