A woman's right?

[Byrdie714]

Oh geez...for real? Not surprised here. Would be happy to join the 3 of you.

Yeppers.

You're more than welcome to join us!

 

[lsfoster]

As have I. You simply fail to recognize it.

Avoiding the question? Interesting. It should be easy enough if you did to just state where, not try to dodge and pretend that I'm willfully ignoring it.

The data has already been provided to indicate that Byrdie's example is simply one specific example of the findings for the majority.

If you don't see how teen aged pregnancy relates to the topic of abortion, you are seriously lacking in fluid thinking.

Actually, I just provided data showing otherwise. But let me guess, it's too suspect? Also, maybe I'm not lacking in fluid thinking as much as you're lacking in the ability to read my posts. I clearly said that it does relate, but that he didn't tie that article to the discussion in any way other than as a emotion plea.

Oh, I see. Your solution, instead of preventing the situation, is to wait until a teenaged parent kills or seriously injures their child. Yeah, lets just sacrifice the kid to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's a pro-life, protect the children logic for you.:roll:

Actually, Cheri, the future can be predicted. A probability can definately be determined.

What is the solution. Sex education, access to birth control, abolishing the "abstinence only" programs, taking off the blinders to reality, and keeping first trimester abortion legal as a possible alternative to be included with all others.

Prevention is the solution, Cheri. Its obvious.

I am pro-abortion in that I strongly believe and support the concept of elective, first trimester abortion and as a viable and safe alternative.

Looks like you are willing to risk the lives of infants in order to take away a woman's right to choose.

Your argument seems to be that teenagers will automatically be awful parents, kill their children, or ruin their lives. Doesn't sound like a good argument for giving them a "choice" to me. Also, if you think that probabilities are a way to tell the future, I'm growing more suspicious about these "statistics" courses that you apparently mentioned taking.

I don't think it's a strong argument to say, "Many teenagers are poor parents, therefore the solution is to allow them to get abortions, so that children aren't placed in that situation". It does nothing to address the issue of abortions, or why teenagers might be getting pregnant or being poor parents, nor does it solve anything for all the teenagers who choose not to get abortions even when they are an option. You can't actually argue that you will be "preventing the situation" unless you're advocating enforced abortions for anyone who might end up being an unfit parent.

Many of the things you suggested are good alternatives, better sex ed and access to contraceptives. But you're really not presenting your arguments very well.

 

[Byrdie714]

Avoiding the question? Interesting. It should be easy enough if you did to just state where, not try to dodge and pretend that I'm willfully ignoring it.



Actually, I just provided data showing otherwise. But let me guess, it's too suspect? Also, maybe I'm not lacking in fluid thinking as much as you're lacking in the ability to read my posts. I clearly said that it does relate, but that he didn't tie that article to the discussion in any way other than as a emotion plea.





Your argument seems to be that teenagers will automatically be awful parents, kill their children, or ruin their lives. Doesn't sound like a good argument for giving them a "choice" to me. Also, if you think that probabilities are a way to tell the future, I'm growing more suspicious about these "statistics" courses that you apparently mentioned taking.

I don't think it's a strong argument to say, "Many teenagers are poor parents, therefore the solution is to allow them to get abortions, so that children aren't placed in that situation". It does nothing to address the issue of abortions, or why teenagers might be getting pregnant or being poor parents, nor does it solve anything for all the teenagers who choose not to get abortions even when they are an option. You can't actually argue that you will be "preventing the situation" unless you're advocating enforced abortions for anyone who might end up being an unfit parent.

Many of the things you suggested are good alternatives, better sex ed and access to contraceptives. But you're really not presenting your arguments very well.

I think that the both of you present good arguments but I am siding with Jillio as her arguments makes logical sense.

The scary thing about some of your arguments is that it's almost setting back women's rights another 50 years. But if that's what you want, then I want my house cleaned, dinner on the table, shirts ironed, laundry done, and when you are good and tired--satisfy me.

Seriously--I don't think you want that.

Allow women the right to decide for thmeselves, afterall, isn't that what you want? To be able to decide for yourself?

 

[shel90]

I think that the both of you present good arguments but I am siding with Jillio as her arguments makes logical sense.

The scary thing about some of your arguments is that it's almost setting back women's rights another 50 years. But if that's what you want, then I want my house cleaned, dinner on the table, shirts ironed, laundry done, and when you are good and tired--satisfy me.

Seriously--I don't think you want that.

Allow women the right to decide for thmeselves, afterall, isn't that what you want? To be able to decide for yourself?

Then I will protest to being a woman!!!

I agree with you...Lsfoster and Jillo presented good arguments.

 

[Cheri]

Make that the 3 of us.....I'm on her ignore list as well as she opted to break friendship.

Oh c'est la vie!

Eh?

 

[Cheri]

Your argument seems to be that teenagers will automatically be awful parents, kill their children, or ruin their lives. Doesn't sound like a good argument for giving them a "choice" to me. Also, if you think that probabilities are a way to tell the future, I'm growing more suspicious about these "statistics" courses that you apparently mentioned taking.

I don't think it's a strong argument to say, "Many teenagers are poor parents, therefore the solution is to allow them to get abortions, so that children aren't placed in that situation". It does nothing to address the issue of abortions, or why teenagers might be getting pregnant or being poor parents, nor does it solve anything for all the teenagers who choose not to get abortions even when they are an option. You can't actually argue that you will be "preventing the situation" unless you're advocating enforced abortions for anyone who might end up being an unfit parent.

Many of the things you suggested are good alternatives, better sex ed and access to contraceptives. But you're really not presenting your arguments very well.

 

[Jiro]

You asked me and I gave you my honest answer, It's not about them, it's about how I feel-- everyone should have their fair shot at life and I have every right to feel what I feel, some of you just have to learn to deal with opinions and views that are different than yourselves.

I don't think it's right for someone to have 50 abortions as a form of birth control, what fairness is that?

wtf? You are out of your mind. Don't you know that for every time you have abortion - your chance of conception decreases. That's what puzzles me about pro-lifers.. they don't even know their own bodies' medical facts.. :roll:

beside... 50 abortions.... that's a lot of money there! That certainly would be an epic fail when you can easily prevent that with some 99 cents condom... :roll:

 

[shel90]

wtf? You are out of your mind. Don't you know that for every time you have abortion - your chance of conception decreases. That's what puzzles me about pro-lifers.. they don't even know their own bodies' medical facts.. :roll:

beside... 50 abortions.... that's a lot of money there! That certainly would be an epic fail when you can easily prevent that with some 99 cents condom... :roll:

 

[Cheri]

Keep bashing, because that's all you know how to do.

 

[Jiro]

Keep bashing, because that's all you know how to do.

keep defending with grossly-erroneous facts/logic and sob stories because that's all you can come up with.

 

[shel90]

Keep bashing, because that's all you know how to do.

Hey, u gotta admit that Jiro is right..50 abortions is hella of a LOT of money! Who can afford that? Not some teenager nor middle class adult unless they are out of their minds. Seriously, who has 50 abortions...maybe someone u know but that is not the majority of the general population.

 

[Jiro]

Your argument seems to be that teenagers will automatically be awful parents, kill their children, or ruin their lives. Doesn't sound like a good argument for giving them a "choice" to me. Also, if you think that probabilities are a way to tell the future, I'm growing more suspicious about these "statistics" courses that you apparently mentioned taking.

I don't think it's a strong argument to say, "Many teenagers are poor parents, therefore the solution is to allow them to get abortions, so that children aren't placed in that situation". It does nothing to address the issue of abortions, or why teenagers might be getting pregnant or being poor parents, nor does it solve anything for all the teenagers who choose not to get abortions even when they are an option. You can't actually argue that you will be "preventing the situation" unless you're advocating enforced abortions for anyone who might end up being an unfit parent.

Many of the things you suggested are good alternatives, better sex ed and access to contraceptives. But you're really not presenting your arguments very well.

correction - it's mostly the uneducated teens who make poor parents as they did not complete high school.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I personally disagreed with so many abortions. It's pretty unlikely to me.

It would make sense if someone have less than 20 to 10 abortions (not 50 or more). But it is not common.

A girl, I know who, had about 10 abortions and didn't regret her choice, so... still, I agreed with some ADers that abortion teaches nothing. According to Jillio's post, look at information. It's not so good. I just wish teens learn a lesson and take it seriously.. Oh well.. =/

All right, since I enjoy this thread and it's indeed interesting. So, this post is my last one.

You guys did pretty good at debate. Cheers ~

 

[BradB08]

Make that the 3 of us.....I'm on her ignore list as well as she opted to break friendship.

Oh c'est la vie!

I wonder if I should be concerned since I disagree with her on abortion?

 

[lsfoster]

I think that the both of you present good arguments but I am siding with Jillio as her arguments makes logical sense.

The scary thing about some of your arguments is that it's almost setting back women's rights another 50 years. But if that's what you want, then I want my house cleaned, dinner on the table, shirts ironed, laundry done, and when you are good and tired--satisfy me.

Seriously--I don't think you want that.

Allow women the right to decide for thmeselves, afterall, isn't that what you want? To be able to decide for yourself?

Yes, Byrdie, I think that's exactly what I'm advocating. Haven't I said many times that along with slightly limiting a woman's ability to terminate a viable fetus I also very strongly support taking away our vote, or right to own land, or get an education, and that we should be payed way less than men? :roll:

I'm kind of disappointed, Byrdie. It's the same type of slippery slope argument as saying that gay marriage is going to lead to polygamy and people marrying goats, and I really thought you were above that, or at least able to see what a weak and misleading argument it was.

 

[jillio]

Yes, Byrdie, I think that's exactly what I'm advocating. Haven't I said many times that along with slightly limiting a woman's ability to terminate a viable fetus I also very strongly support taking away our vote, or right to own land, or get an education, and that we should be payed way less than men? :roll:

I'm kind of disappointed, Byrdie. It's the same type of slippery slope argument as saying that gay marriage is going to lead to polygamy and people marrying goats, and I really thought you were above that, or at least able to see what a weak and misleading argument it was.

Its not about a slippery slope at all. It is about consistency.:roll:

 

[lsfoster]

Take the following situations:

A woman is 26 weeks pregnant, and is stabbed in the stomach by an attacker, killing the baby.

Another woman went into early labor, delivered a healthy baby the week earlier, and suffocates her own child that week.

A third woman is 26 weeks pregnant, goes to see a doctor to have a late-term abortion. The doctor doesn't perform the procedure correctly and delivers a live baby, but throws it in the dumpster with the other "fetuses" anyways rather than tell the mother.

A fourth woman is 26 weeks pregnant and decides to get an abortion.


Look at those situations, and tell me who society considers to have committed a crime. In every case, it's the exact same baby, exact same point in the pregnancy, and yet there is only one time where someone isn't held accountable for their actions. To me, that isn't fair.

I would especially like you to think about the early labor situation. If this is simply a "woman's choice" then what about women who have premature deliveries? If one woman can decide at 26 weeks to kill her baby, then why can't the woman who delivered at 25 weeks? There is absolutely no difference between the babies except the "little bit of tissue" holding one inside the womb. Why would you judge a mother who would kill her newborn but not a woman who gets an abortion at the exact same point?

Its not about a slippery slope at all. It is about consistency.:roll:

And when you can explain how those are consistent, then all will be well. Please note, you'd have to explain how they are consistent without resorting to "well one is legally recognized and the others are....". That's the whole point. Explain how the law is consistent through all those situations.

Also, please explain how it isn't a slippery slope. When you can show clearly that what I have said will result in women losing all their rights, and destroying all the progress made in the past 50 years, then you will have an argument.

 

[Byrdie714]

Yes, Byrdie, I think that's exactly what I'm advocating. Haven't I said many times that along with slightly limiting a woman's ability to terminate a viable fetus I also very strongly support taking away our vote, or right to own land, or get an education, and that we should be payed way less than men? :roll:

I'm kind of disappointed, Byrdie. It's the same type of slippery slope argument as saying that gay marriage is going to lead to polygamy and people marrying goats, and I really thought you were above that, or at least able to see what a weak and misleading argument it was.

Gay marriage isn't a medical procedure whereas abortion is.

Two seperate topics.

Besides I was being sarcastic when I mentioned about taking the women's right away as I also stated:

Allow women the right to decide for thmeselves, afterall, isn't that what you want? To be able to decide for yourself?

 

[jillio]

And when you can explain how those are consistent, then all will be well. Please note, you'd have to explain how they are consistent without resorting to "well one is legally recognized and the others are....". That's the whole point. Explain how the law is consistent through all those situations.

Also, please explain how it isn't a slippery slope. When you can show clearly that what I have said will result in women losing all their rights, and destroying all the progress made in the past 50 years, then you will have an argument.

I was talking about Byrdie's consistency in supporting women's rights, and your inconsistency in doing so.

The slippery slope argument has long been recognized as fallicacy relied on when one runs out of fact.

 

[lsfoster]

As far as I am concerned, I am being fair about women's reproductive rights. The fact is, sex isn't fair for women. We run a higher risk, that doesn't mean that we should get something extra as a result. So I'm gay, and I want to have kids. Biologically, my girlfriend and I can't make a baby. Is this fair? No. Should we somehow get some other benefit as a result? No, the laws should still treat us equally. Everyone keeps saying that a man should deal with paying child support because that's the risk that he takes, yet nobody seems to believe that the woman should be responsible for the risk that she takes: pregnancy.

I've also stated many times that I do believe there is a compromise. If a woman is going to get the extra choice of deciding to deal with her actions, why can't she do it before the fetus is viable? I just don't see how 20 weeks is not enough time to decide that. The fact is, you can try to dehumanize the "fetus" as much as you want, but if you took that baby exactly as it is, and simply moved it up a few inches into it's mother's arms, it would be a totally different story. It's still the same baby, and it's still killing it.

I was talking about Byrdie's consistency in supporting women's rights, and your inconsistency in doing so.

The slippery slope argument has long been recognized as fallicacy relied on when one runs out of fact.

I've already stated my views on women's rights, but I'll quote them again, in case you missed it.

And I am very aware that the slippery slope is a fallacy, that's why I told Byrdie that I was disappointed he was using it.