Abortion and Birth Control

Message boards : Politics : Abortion and Birth Control
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 33 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1874089 - Posted: 20 Jun 2017, 0:17:44 UTC - in response to Message 1874087.  

I think abstinence, while unrealistic in most cases, is probably the best answer, going forward.

Abstinence just doesn't work. Just look at the rates in Texas where abstinence is vigorously supported by the Governor.

Oh I know it's nice to preach it, but not very effective. I'm just saying if we really wanted to stop the arguing about the topic, abstinence is the best way. There's not going to be a 100% acceptable answer, otherwise.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1874089 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1874092 - Posted: 20 Jun 2017, 0:25:30 UTC - in response to Message 1874090.  

Abstinence ain't in our genes ;-)


Lol, I think just about everybody here can agree with you on that. :~)
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1874092 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11367
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1874100 - Posted: 20 Jun 2017, 1:08:29 UTC - in response to Message 1874092.  

Abstinence ain't in our genes ;-)


Lol, I think just about everybody here can agree with you on that. :~)

So let's legislate against the consequences.
ID: 1874100 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30767
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1874119 - Posted: 20 Jun 2017, 4:17:59 UTC - in response to Message 1874100.  

Abstinence ain't in our genes ;-)


Lol, I think just about everybody here can agree with you on that. :~)

So let's legislate against the consequences.

Absolutely, new law, all males must be locked into chastity devices.
ID: 1874119 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1874377 - Posted: 22 Jun 2017, 2:39:41 UTC

When mankind has found a way to control the explosion called population growth and when every baby born has access to a good home whether or not the birth mother wants to keep it and most importantly when there are no babies or young children dying from starvation I may then consider the concept of banning some abortions beyond what is now law.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1874377 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30767
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1874388 - Posted: 22 Jun 2017, 5:02:25 UTC - in response to Message 1874100.  

Abstinence ain't in our genes ;-)


Lol, I think just about everybody here can agree with you on that. :~)

So let's legislate against the consequences.

Actually letting this be chewed for a while.

Didn't China actually do that? Mandatory abortion and sterilization.

And from a perspective of violating the rights of the woman how is a mandatory abortion any different than a forced pregnancy?
ID: 1874388 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1874754 - Posted: 23 Jun 2017, 23:08:47 UTC

ID: 1874754 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Mr. Kevvy Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 3777
Credit: 1,114,826,392
RAC: 3,319
Canada
Message 1893233 - Posted: 4 Oct 2017, 21:31:21 UTC

House passes bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy

The House on Tuesday approved a bill banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, advancing a key GOP priority for the third time in the past four years — this time, with a supportive Republican in the White House.

The bill, known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is not expected to emerge from the Senate, where most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans can block its consideration. But antiabortion activists are calling President Trump’s endorsement of the bill a significant advance for their movement.

The White House said in a statement released Monday that the administration “strongly supports” the legislation “and applauds the House of Representatives for continuing its efforts to secure critical pro-life protections.”

The bill provides for abortions after 20 weeks gestation only when they are necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. Under the bill, abortions performed during that period could be carried out “only in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive” and would require a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present.

ID: 1893233 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19168
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1893294 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 1:42:27 UTC

And he is not the only one.
Yes, Rep. Tim Murphy is a hypocrite on abortion. That’s not the worst part.

Re: limits.
Each case is different and any ruling should only be a guideline.
Late-Term Abortion Was the Right Choice for Me
ID: 1893294 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11367
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1893378 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 16:34:26 UTC - in response to Message 1893349.  

Understanding the moral and ethical dilemma from both sides. When does Protected Human Life begin?

One could also ask does protected life for the mother end at pregnacy?
ID: 1893378 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19168
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1893393 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 18:52:28 UTC

Another question, that should cause some deep thinking.
A pregnant woman is attacked, she survives but the fetus doesn't. Is it or not murder?
ID: 1893393 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19168
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1893428 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:03:06 UTC
Last modified: 5 Oct 2017, 22:03:23 UTC

And another question.
Premature babies and especially those born very early, generally don't do well in school, due to their relative immaturity. Should society start aging of children from date of conception rather than birth date.

If you need it in numbers, consider the case where one child is born after full term just after the academic start date and another child born at 24 weeks just before the academic start date.
If the school start age is determined as all those who were 5 years old in the preceding year, September to August inclusive.
The first child will be nearly 6 years and 9 months since conception, while for the second child it will only be 5 years and 6 months since conception.
ID: 1893428 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1893434 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:18:52 UTC - in response to Message 1893431.  

What is the legal difference between the baby held by its mother immediately after birth and one day before?


The day before it is still a part of her body, therefore always her choice up until birth.
ID: 1893434 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24886
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1893435 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:20:08 UTC - in response to Message 1893431.  


Back to my question:
What is the legal difference between the baby held by its mother immediately after birth and one day before?
Now you're being pedantic for the sake of it. The day before, she is still a pregnant woman, the day after, a mother.
ID: 1893435 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1893441 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:31:37 UTC - in response to Message 1893439.  
Last modified: 5 Oct 2017, 22:33:21 UTC

What is the legal difference between the baby held by its mother immediately after birth and one day before?


The day before it is still a part of her body, therefore always her choice up until birth.

So you believe that a 'day before' is not a human being.


It is a human foetus.

Look at the new born baby in their mother's arms. Understanding that all babies need another to survive. Is that new born baby different the 'day before'?


Yes. it is a foetus the day before.
ID: 1893441 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30767
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1893451 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:52:52 UTC

Better answer the question of what is life:
life: noun
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

capacity for reproduction -- are humans before puberty, life?

Now those strict Constitution persons should ask about 1770's. While the Mom couldn't abort before birth*, the Father could until the 21st year after birth as there were no restrictions on child abuse and children were chattel, like slaves. And remember a Master could kill a slave and it wasn't murder.


*there were a lot of still births then and no one dared question the midwife.
ID: 1893451 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19168
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1893452 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 22:54:07 UTC - in response to Message 1893294.  

And he is not the only one.
Yes, Rep. Tim Murphy is a hypocrite on abortion. That’s not the worst part.

Rep. Tim Murphy has realised his position is untenable and resigned. Rep. Tim Murphy resigns from Congress after allegedly asking woman to have abortion

Re: limits.
Each case is different and any ruling should only be a guideline.
Late-Term Abortion Was the Right Choice for Me
ID: 1893452 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1893454 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 23:00:29 UTC

Beginning of human personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.
ID: 1893454 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24886
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1893459 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 23:08:10 UTC - in response to Message 1893456.  

It is possible that this 'debate' will never conclude.
For once, I do agree with you. There is no man, born, alive or dead who can talk with absolute assurance about abortion for the simple fact, they are not female. YET they are the ones making the laws, Arrogance or Hypocrisy?

I'll let you decide!
ID: 1893459 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24886
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1893466 - Posted: 5 Oct 2017, 23:15:39 UTC - in response to Message 1893463.  

It is possible that this 'debate' will never conclude.
For once, I do agree with you. There is no man, born, alive or dead who can talk with absolute assurance about abortion for the simple fact, they are not female. YET they are the ones making the laws, Arrogance or Hypocrisy?

I'll let you decide!

Understanding the impact upon only women.

Neither. Just one's personal morality, ethics, religious beliefs, ideology, etc. are involved.
So you're saying that "your" personal morality, religious beliefs & ideology dismisses a female as a 2nd class person only fit for your sexual requirements?
ID: 1893466 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 33 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Abortion and Birth Control


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.