Abortion

[sees_all1]

To those arguing that abortion covers up child abuse, yes I'm sure that in those cases it did. But you're certain that none of the partner-less mothers were sexually abused or raped? Tell me, how exactly does having a child magically provide evidence of rape or abuse? And I certainly don't have a number to provide, but I have to wonder if that child isn't next in line for abuse.

[hide=obvious answer is obvious]

A PREGNANT 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHERE THE LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT IS 14 IS A BIG RED FLAG

duh.

[/hide]

[Skeptical]

To those arguing that abortion covers up child abuse, yes I'm sure that in those cases it did. But you're certain that none of the partner-less mothers were sexually abused or raped? Tell me, how exactly does having a child magically provide evidence of rape or abuse? And I certainly don't have a number to provide, but I have to wonder if that child isn't next in line for abuse.

[hide=obvious answer is obvious]

A PREGNANT 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHERE THE LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT IS 14 IS A BIG RED FLAG

duh.

[/hide]

 

Yes, thank you, I missed that.

 

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."

 

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/12504-teen-pregnancy-rates-usa/#ixzz14x4DYyan

And that's still only an argument against underage abortion nothing else.

[Alg]

Everything is an opinion; we just choose to use certain tolerances concerning scientific certainty to distinguish truth.

That would be cool, wouldn't it? Most people just take their opinions and state that they're backed by science so that they can close they're mind while singing "lalala I'm right and you aren't lalala". This isn't a science issue, though. More on that later.

 

Let's look at some of that science, now.

The average human male makes millions of sperm cells at a time. There is enough sperm in each shot that he could potentially impregnate enough women to double the world's population in a matter of hours. I'm no expert in menstruation, or female reproductive health, so I'll avoid giving numbers there.

 

A fertilized zygote is different from the two gametes that formed it. It pretty much begins to develop within a short period after. It takes approximately 9 months for the zygote to develop to a degree that it can survive outside of the mother, though it isn't done developing at that point. Brain function that we call 'human' is about done by 5 years of age. Puberty begins at between 9 and 11 years. After 16 years, the individual is physically an adult, or a complete human. Brain chemistry doesn't finish developing until around 23 years of age on average.

 

See, human life is a process. The earliest stages require the individual to grow inside the mother's womb until it has the bare necessities to survive outside, and that's where the issue comes from. The only reason that ending the process at the earliest stages is different from doing the same at a later stage is that the zygote has barely begun development and still requires its mother as a temporary host.

 

This is great practice for when I have to explain where babies come from to a future child :razz:

[sees_all1]

And that's still only an argument against underage abortion nothing else.

 

[hide=other obvious answer is obvious]

BEING PREGNANT IS A PRETTY RELIABLE INDICATOR THAT SEX OCCURRED

This might not be as obvious as the first, so I'll elaborate.

Abortion covers up the "accident". It allows for long term abuse to continue. At the very least, when a woman gives birth, its a pretty big event. One that most people would go to the hospital for. In an abusive situation, abortion covers up rape allowing it to go on indefinitely. Having a baby should at the very least disrupt it enough for contact with the outside world.

[/hide]

[Skeptical]

I wasn't saying that my conclusion was necessarily correct, just that there really is not way to prove anything: look at how creationists deny evolution.

 

As for human life being a process, I couldn't agree more. But it's a senseless argument: I know a woman who had a still-birth. Very sad, an accident that shouldn't have to happen to any mother. Now, condolences were offered by her friends and family, and a brief period of depression followed, which I am given to understand is not uncommon. Now, at my school there was a suicide, of a young man who was suffering from both various mental disorders and a particularly hostile social environment. Much sadness, print, silence, remembrance, grave-visiting, flowers, and condolences are offered every year to his family and friends. Odd how much more important a human life is when it's a person, not just a collection of non-sentient cells that has an excellent chance of having been aborted/being aborted due to natural causes.

 

All because people insist on considering a fetus a child, when there is not only a social, but also an evolutionary drive to preserve children in one's species. (Not because it benefits the individual, however, as some would erroneously point out, but because it benefits the species as a whole. Just an interesting idea that I've been reading about.)

[Zierro]

So the soccer coach threatens to kill her if she tells anyone. Does that make it her fault?

The whole premise of an age of consent is that children mentally cannot make an informed decision about their relationships. She cannot be expected to tell her parents about this, especially if she felt threatened.

 

If she decides not to tell anyone, of course she is at fault for deciding not to tell anyone. And if she were threatened then that could be reported as well and action most likely would be taken, resulting in him not being able to have anymore contact with her and the situation being known. Not to say it wouldn't be a difficult decision to make, but it is still a decision that can be made.

 

Blaming abortion for the cause of rapes being unknown is silly because she could just as easily tell her parents the father is someone other than the coach or that she consented to the coach. It purely comes down to what she lets be known.

 

Tell me that's the girls fault for not reporting it. Its worse than bullying, because its her own father who she cannot get away from.

 

Again, a difficult decision, but she is capable of standing up for her own rights, consulting officials, and cutting ties to the man who she's probably better off never seeing again. She most certainly can get away from him, and she most certainly should.

 

If abortion was illegal, a pregnant girl at the age of 13 would be an obvious sign that something is wrong.

 

If abortion were illegal, you'd see more cases of parents neglecting and abusing their children - as they did not want to have them but the government prevented them from ending the children's suffering much sooner. You'd also see fuller foster homes.

[Dupin]

Bringing up the most extreme cases is hardly evidence. I would ask how she would get the abortion without contact with the outside world, but I'm sure there are some gruesome details just waiting under the surface, so I'll leave that one alone.

 

Two can play that game. There have been multiple cases of girls being imprisoned in secret dungeons at a rapist/kidnapper's house, where they live out their lives and get abused daily. When they end up pregnant, guess what happens - nothing. They have the kid(s), and when those kids get to be barely large enough for a pervert, they are raped and abused as well. It's a horrifying idea, but it happens, and it would definitely be better if the original girl could have just aborted the baby. By using this story, I could make the conclusion that it would be best for little portable abortion machines to be available to be placed in the homes of an average guy/ crazy rapist, for an affordable value. Heck, why don't we have the government foot the bill? We wouldn't want any completely unusual situations to worsen, would we?

[Skeptical]

And that's still only an argument against underage abortion nothing else.

 

[hide=other obvious answer is obvious]

BEING PREGNANT IS A PRETTY RELIABLE INDICATOR THAT SEX OCCURRED

This might not be as obvious as the first, so I'll elaborate.

Abortion covers up the "accident". It allows for long term abuse to continue. At the very least, when a woman gives birth, its a pretty big event. One that most people would go to the hospital for. In an abusive situation, abortion covers up rape allowing it to go on indefinitely. Having a baby should at the very least disrupt it enough for contact with the outside world.

[/hide]

 

I'm fine with sarcasm, but would you please refrain from using larger fonts? I'll read what you say, but I see no reason to make your own argument unpleasant to pursue.

 

So you wish to rely on pregnancy to reveal sexual abuse? That's idiotic, to say the least. ~750,000 teenage births per year. You expect that every one of these is going to be properly reviewed by a government official? And if you are honestly suggesting that people would inquire, than I fear that you've gone completely insane: when people learn of someone who has become pregnant/had a child, they say nothing since it is a socially humiliating thing to happen. I've known people to cover it up (not a statistically significant number, but still I wouldn't be surprised if it happens fairly frequently.)

[sees_all1]

So because a rapist rapes a rapes a girl, you feel that not only should she be forced to have that baby (at 13 years old there is a good chance of dying in child birth) as well use it as evidence to say AHHAH she indeed was raped.

 

And all rape victims must have the rapists baby because that baby is evidence that they indeed were raped!

 

As ive said before on this thread, "Your opinion is Pathetic"

As it is right now, there are MANY cases where statutory rape is covered up with abortions. Sometimes it was "consensual", where the girl is covering it up herself, but other times its flat out rape where it isn't consensual and she's forced into having an abortion so the abuse is able to continue because no one reports it.

 

The worst part about it is that abortion clinics are all too willing to help cover it up - that's their business. Someone goes through their doors because they have a "problem", and they're able to take care of that "problem".

 

 

 

 

Abortion is also used to cover up affairs - people cheating on the boyfriends or girlfriends, or their husbands and wives. Might not be as big of a deal as rape, but its still helps feed immorality in general.

[Skeptical]

Who are you to decide what moral code others follow?

 

Does being forced to have a child as the result of rape make the world a better place? Does it make people happier or safer? Does the world really need yet another unwanted child, who will suffer in silence their entire lives because they were unwanted?

 

Yes, abortion has been used to cover up abuse. But for someone who supports freedom to bear arms, it's a rather interesting position to take: we are discussing a tool that can be potentially used for what is considered an immoral purpose. In one instance, you insist that it is a right, and that immoral uses are simply a corruption of the intention. In the other, you hold that a few instances of immoral conduct mean the entire system is immoral. There are thousands of murders committed with firearms per year in the US, but you can provide what, a handful of examples (at most) of abortion being used to cover up abuse?

[sees_all1]

Who are you to decide what moral code others follow?

What kind of question is that? Are you sidestepping the issue that there are many documented cases of forced abortion covering up rape? Or that abortion is regularly used to cover up statutory rape? I wish the stories I posted were isolated incidents, but they're not. I just grabbed a couple results from a google search. You keep asking about abortion for incest and rape, and I've shown you how that can lead to continued incest and rape. Abortion doesn't solve that problem.

I've also pointed out that abortion is used to cover up extramarital affairs. Are you sidestepping that issue too? No, I don't want to define your morality, but you have to recognize that there are socially accepted terms on morality. You don't sleep around once you're in a relationship.

 

Does being forced to have a child as the result of rape make the world a better place? Does it make people happier or safer? Does the world really need yet another unwanted child, who will suffer in silence their entire lives because they were unwanted?

Because you're better off dead than unwanted.

 

Yes, abortion has been used to cover up abuse. But for someone who supports freedom to bear arms, it's a rather interesting position to take: we are discussing a tool that can be potentially used for what is considered an immoral purpose. In one instance, you insist that it is a right, and that immoral uses are simply a corruption of the intention. In the other, you hold that a few instances of immoral conduct mean the entire system is immoral. There are thousands of murders committed with firearms per year in the US, but you can provide what, a handful of examples (at most) of abortion being used to cover up abuse?

The right to life trumps the right to bear arms. I believe the right to life trumps the inconvenience a woman has for about 8 months. I also believe that abortion is intrinsically evil, because the intent of abortion is to take the life of an innocent human being. Owning a firearm isn't intrinsically evil - there can be good purposes for owning a gun.

 

Also, the examples I've provided here were gleaned off the top results in a google search, and I limited the cases to Ohio (I was already aware of the local news there). I can give you more than a handful if I wanted to put some effort into it.

I do remember off the top of my head an undercover investigation into 700? more than 800 U.S. abortion facilities, where more than 90% broke the law requiring medical facilities to report suspected abuse of minors to authorities. That isn't a handful, at all.

 

Check it out yourself:

http://www.childpredator.com/CoverUp.cfm

liveaction.org/monalisa/

[sees_all1]

you knew you couldnt win when I was talking about adult women getting raped so you jump into the FOR THE CHILDREN arguement.

No, I was beginning to feel like I was talking to a brick wall because the same arguments are used over and over. In the case of rape and incest, there are definite, legitimate concerns about long term abuse which abortion allows to go unchecked.

 

For the estimated 1.1 million abortions that occur every year, it is estimated that only 1% are because of rape or incest.

Although its a difficult position to hear - abortion kills an innocent human being. That's why there can't be exceptions, because you can't marginalize or trample on the most basic of rights for the least of us.

 

Sure abortion can be abused, but there is legitimate use that does benefit the people who get them. You feel that firearms can be abused but should be legal (even though they are designed to kill living beings) but not abortion?

Abortion also kills human beings. You buying a firearm does not necessarily affect another person, but abortion ends the life of a human being.

[obfuscator]

Catholic households - only republican.

 

Abortion - more kids finishing high school. Because every aborted child would have been a failure anyway.

 

If morals and ethics could reasonably be set aside in this debate, there would be no debate. The nature of morals is not something that allows "setting aside". If you truly believe in something, you will fight for it.

 

Also, are you suggesting the Vatican is faking statistics? Prove the source wrong, don't just label it bad.

 

Wikipedia is used as a source by tons of people here on both sides of debates. Given the fact that wikipedia articles are usually pretty well sourced it should be pretty easy to obtain a "legitimate" source from there.

[obfuscator]

Good to know your morals are so flexible they can be disregarded at the drop of a hat. Not all of us are like that.

[Alg]

Must have missed the part where you were arguing against abortion in this, then.

 

Instead, you guys seem to be attacking him rather than his argument. Unless you guys had another reason for bringing up his upbringing and opinion on gun control?

[sees_all1]

Ok to start, if your going to throw statistics throw a reputable source - not a wiki, not fox news, not the Vatican.

There was a New York Times article published in 1989 that cited 1% as well. Wiki cites an article as recent as 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html

This reputable enough for you?

 

Also im tired of hearing its killing babies, its no different then an unfertilized sex cell besides the fact that its dividing. This is the brick wall I know we have on each other. I dont believe they are a person at conception and you do, can you argue this point without saying you are killing humans or killing babies?

I'm arguing a biological fact, you're arguing a personal belief. I've done my best to keep religion out of my arguments because you'd criticize it just because it was based in "faith". You're arguing a position contrary to biology without providing a legitimate alternative, a position I could only assume is based on "faith". If you were to say humans got their rights three months after conception, I'd argue that point in time is arbitrary and unclear. Whats the difference between day 89 and day 90 in a process that is seamless?

 

I think that a women who has something growing in her should be able to decide whether or not she wants to keep it. Also world population is reaching its maximum limit, but people in industrial countries choose to have less kids (via birth control and abortion) then they used to.

 

Its unreasonable to tell people to not have sex, thats why the Popes replies of abstinence is the solution to aids is just hilarious.

For all your concern about the world's population, I'd think you would have thought that AIDS was a miracle... guess not.

 

Strictly from a governmental standpoint abortion makes sense, less teenage mothers on welfare, more people finishing high school and seeking more education, less kids in rapidly over crowding school systems.

Prove it - More abortion means less teenage mothers on welfare, More abortion means more people finishing high school and getting higher education.

No wikipedia, no huffington post, no liberal bloggers.

 

At least with rape I thought you agreed with me that that baby shouldnt have existed in the first place. So lets say at the very least rape is an acceptable reason to get an abortion, but people may choose to do it as a form of birth control, thus the potential for abuse.

 

A firearm very much can kill your fellow man or a bird or another animal. So accepting firearms is one and the same as abortion.

 

My belief is that your values come from the fact you were raised in a republican - catholic, household. Care to disagree with me?

Owning a gun for recreational purposes, like skeet shooting, harms no one. Abortion ends the life of an innocent individual. That's why abortion is deemed an intrinsic evil, and a gun is not.

 

I've spent a very long time understanding and researching this issue, so that I can articulate a clear position. I've learned the rhetoric from both sides, cut through the crap, and formed my own opinion. I've found that one side can base itself in honesty, morality, science and truth, while the other side is filled with scandals and fluff - touchy-feely compassion with little substance.

[Powman3]

Pro-Choice.

 

It's their decision.

[Skeptical]

Pro-Choice.

 

It's their decision.

 

An answer eloquent in its brevity.

[obfuscator]

Yet I doubt you'd say the same if I said:

 

I'm pro-life. The baby has a right to life.

[Skeptical]

I wouldn't, because what you're saying is factually incorrect: it's not a baby.

 

If people wished to practice infanticide, I would agree.

[Alg]

Honest though it may be, admitting that posters whom one agrees with are treated better than those that one doesn't is out of the question.

It's complimenting a guy you agree with. Nothing wrong with that, no need to make excuses about it. In the same way, Y_Guy's pointing it out because he disagrees with the point in question.

[obfuscator]

I wouldn't, because what you're saying is factually incorrect: it's not a baby.

 

If people wished to practice infanticide, I would agree.

My mistake.

 

The human deserves the right to life. Biologically, it is human, this is scientific fact.

[Saru Inc]

you knew you couldnt win when I was talking about adult women getting raped so you jump into the FOR THE CHILDREN arguement.

No, I was beginning to feel like I was talking to a brick wall because the same arguments are used over and over. In the case of rape and incest, there are definite, legitimate concerns about long term abuse which abortion allows to go unchecked.

 

For the estimated 1.1 million abortions that occur every year, it is estimated that only 1% are because of rape or incest.

Although its a difficult position to hear - abortion kills an innocent human being. That's why there can't be exceptions, because you can't marginalize or trample on the most basic of rights for the least of us.

 

Ok to start, if your going to throw statistics throw a reputable source - not a wiki,not fox news, not the Vatican.

 

And most rape isnt consistent, its a girl walking alone who gets attacked. Do you feel in that situation that she should be forced to have the rapists baby?

 

Also im tired of hearing its killing babies, its no different then an unfertilized sex cell besides the fact that its dividing. This is the brick wall I know we have on each other. I dont believe they are a person at conception and you do, can you argue this point without saying you are killing humans or killing babies?

 

I think that a women who has something growing in her should be able to decide whether or not she wants to keep it. Also world population is reaching its maximum limit, but people in industrial countries choose to have less kids (via birth control and abortion) then they used to.

 

Its unreasonable to tell people to not have sex, thats why the Popes replies of abstinence is the solution to aids is just hilarious.

 

 

Strictly from a governmental standpoint abortion makes sense, less teenage mothers on welfare, more people finishing high school and seeking more education, less kids in rapidly over crowding school systems.

 

Morals and ethics aside can you tell me one benefit there is to force people to be parents when they arent ready to be?

 

Sure abortion can be abused, but there is legitimate use that does benefit the people who get them. You feel that firearms can be abused but should be legal (even though they are designed to kill living beings) but not abortion?

Abortion also kills human beings. You buying a firearm does not necessarily affect another person, but abortion ends the life of a human being.

 

At least with rape I thought you agreed with me that that baby shouldnt have existed in the first place. So lets say at the very least rape is an acceptable reason to get an abortion, but people may choose to do it as a form of birth control, thus the potential for abuse.

 

A firearm very much can kill your fellow man or a bird or another animal. So accepting firearms is one and the same as abortion.

 

My belief is that your values come from the fact you were raised in a republican - catholic, household. Care to disagree with me?

 

I see where this has already gone; no point now in debating this anymore.

[sees_all1]

I wouldn't, because what you're saying is factually incorrect: it's not a baby.

 

No, factually it is a baby.

 

baby

- 8 dictionary results

ba·by

   /ˈbeɪbi/ Show Spelled [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.

noun

1.an infant or very young child.

2.a newborn or very young animal.

3.the youngest member of a family, group, etc.

4.an immature or childish person.

5.a human fetus.

[Kimberly]

Definitions are kind of like morals: they'll change with the times and no one really agrees them anyway.