Nothing like a good abortion discussion to get me out of studying.

Izzy,

You must have read wrong, I have never said, nor do I believe, that the mother should die to avoid an abortion. In case you missed it the first time, let the record be corrected with this. As far as who should decide, that’s easy, her doctor. If her life is truly in danger, and abortion is the only option to save her life, than an abortion should be allowed to save her life.

Again Izzy, you’re response just gives me your limits, but doesn’t explain why you have those limits. I gave you my reasons above, now I want your reasons. You write,

I think that if the fetus is in a stage where it cannot survive (and this would be a gray area which would need to be adjusted to reflect current medical advances) then it should be ok to have an abortion.

Why should abortion not be allowed if the fetus could survive outside the mother? Please explain why, not just restate your beliefs. Afterall, even if the fetus can survive outside of the mothers body, by making abortion illegal at that point you are still, to use your words, “forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus then child and undergo the whole pregnancy phase of life to make someone else happy” So why in this case is this okay?

Remember Izzy, I don’t want your limits, I want to know why you have those limits. To simply say they are ‘personal’, and you don’t want to give them, is to avoid the question, and why even have an abortion discussion at all if both sides don’t have to give their rationale for having their limits.

I eagerly await your response.

Well I’ll be damned, imagine the chances of us bumping into each other all the way over here. If I remember correctly, in our last abortion discussion, you refused to give your reasons for wanting to limit abortion. I would give you mine, but when pressed, you wouldn’t give me yours. You would only say that it is because you personally don’t like them at certain stages, but won’t explain why. Do you still respond the same way? If so, than based on that response, I could equally say the same thing, and this discussion would go nowhere. So if we want this discussion to go somewhere, we both have to give reasons for our views, just as I have to defend and give mine and can’t simply resort to “because I personally don’t like them at that stage”, you also have to give reasons for your views, and can’t simply resort to “because I personally don’t like them at that stage”. So again I ask you Izzy, what are your reasons why you want to limit abortion?

With that out of the way, allow me to respond to what you said, and give you my reasons why I believe as such, you write,

You have made it clear in previous posts (haven’t read all of the above) that you are against abortions which would save the woman’s life. You feel she should just be let to die… period

Where did I say this? This is not true, and in fact most (all?) pro-lifers make exception in cases where the mothers life is truly in danger. So I do believe in allowing ‘abortion’ if the mothers life is truly at risk, but this is not really an ‘abortion’ in the normal meaning of the word. When the mothers life is truly at risk, the goal is to save both lives, but because saving the babies life will cause the death of the mother and in doing so also put the babies life at risk, it is better to save the mothers life so as to increase life, and the chances of someone living. It is like a medic in war who only has one life saving syringe yet two patients, he is going to choose to use that syringe on the patient that has the highest chance of living, and in this case, that would be the mother.

Contrast that to what abortion really means, in an abortion, the mother is not going into the abortion clinic to save a life, but for the sole purpose of killing her unborn child. So in one case your goal is to save lives, in the other your goal is to end them.

Second, you ask, Our social services system (welfare and food stamps) is already overloaded.. who is gonna support all the abandoned children..

All of these questions are secondary to the issue of abortion. If abortion is wrong, than it should be stopped regardless of how packed our current welfare system is, or how expensive it would be. To argue in favor of abortion based on how expensive it would be to support all of the children that may result, would be like arguing in favor of slavery based on how expensive it would be to re-educate all of the slaves, or support such an uneducated citizenry. Clearly, as in the case of slavery, the expense to society is secondary to the much greater issue of abortion.

Izzy, you keep saying that I “always dodged this one too” over and over again, yet those who remember our discussion on abortion would say that it is you who dodges questions, not me. So since I directly answered all of your questions above, and did not ‘dodge’ any of them, can you please now tell me WHY (I want to know why you have your limits, not what those limits are) you believe abortion should have certain limits? Why shouldn’t abortion be allowed for any reason at all, at any stage of pregnancy whatsoever?

I trust that you will answer these questions directly, and not dodge them.

I’m sorry but knowing that your stance is that ALL abortions are wrong and should be done away with is clearly a close minded type of mentality.. considering you are not affected in any way directly.

Too bad our old arguements are no longer available since DD’s site got raped and is now gone.

But just to toss in a lil tid bit for the heck of it..

You have made it clear in previous posts (haven’t read all of the above) that you are against abortions which would save the woman’s life. You feel she should just be let to die… period.. but you never explained how you would cope with such a huge negative backlash from that.. considering in our surrent society.. most households require both adults in a household (assumeing they are married and all) are income providers.. due such a harsh law implication.. to not abort and well let die anyways (the fetus would die without a living woman) both the fetus and the woman would cause a very negative result for her (the woman) family being her husband, already born children, parents, etc…

Also another negative result that would happen.. and you’ve always dodged this one too..

Our social services system (welfare and food stamps) is already overloaded.. who is gonna support all the abandoned children.. you can’t force a mother who delivers a baby to keep it… or support it.. What put her in jail.. our jail/prison system is overloaded too (if you didn’t notice) and it would be worse.. considering the would be illegal abortion giving docs would be there too.. and their nurses.. and what about he foster homes? do yu see a decrease in their head count?

I agree with you think we need to maybe give the abortion thing a revision.. and maybe tighten up the requirements (due to current and evolving technology and medical advances which would allow a fetus to survive if removed from a woman at an earlier stage in devlopement) but to remove the ability to choose all together has too much a negative affect which overshadows any possible gains you and your group is seeking.

The benefit of a few should never outway the benefit of the masses.

your arguement is designed to funnel the debate
narrow it down to one fundamental arguement
and ignore all other input, perspective, experience or concern
only ONE attribute of the debate is legitimate and the approach is intended to isolate and distinguish this attribute from any other

fundamentalism is radicalism, and like all forms of radicalism
it deserves inspection and has value when considered among other logic processes – in fact i believe radicalism is provacative and incites necessary debate
but is no-less a dangerously exclusive and mongering logic and method if it defines the parameters within which any dialogue or debate can occur

by ignoring all other attributes and realities that do not fit into the ‘box’ / parameters created by fundemental logic, the benefit of dialogue and debate is irraticated.

i could go onward from here and continue (more thoroughly for that matter) to address each one of your points and references as countless others have before me, there is enough material out there to provide us each side of this arguement because the mandate of this arguement has been set and continues to be compelled by fundamentalist logic over and over and over again

what i am arriving at is, that there is no benefit to the nature of this debate

the benefit and purpose of debate is to include all views and logic processes, experiences, implications and consequences with the outcome being that common concerns are factored in, diverse concerns are addressed and solutions are presented that (through the course and process of the information sharing) come to exhibit and engender the most of the many implicated and/or involved in the issue at hand

a debate that is reduced to a fundamental fragment of the issue, is less likely to result in solutions but in the case that it does it will be a solution that represents the fewest and the least

if we (herein) debating the issue of abortion outside that box, with the purpose of constructivism, the whole debate would have curtailed into a discussion about the potentials in the proposal of regulated vascectomies – because this proposal engenders and meets the concerns of both of us (involved at this time in the debate)

however, solutions do not appear to be the purpose of your need to debate the issue – so that means that i’m engaged in a counter-constructive and (sorry but) meaningless debate

though i highly appreciate your intellegence and that of those who provided input throughout this string, and i respect that anyone who would engage with this debate obviously has an interest in hearing a variety of views – the fact is that we could on for years in the box you have created surrounding these issues and all the while bounce up against those walls without ever dismantling the barriers between semantic football and progressive comprehension that leads to new and gratifying solutions

the debate we are now having is merely a replication of a debate
the recounting of a ping-pong match confined in a small (very small) room
and does not attempt to expand or transcend the conundrum that is confined within the walls of that box

i am more interested in having a new mandate and compelling reason to have this debate… i am more interested in learning something new and arriving at new ways of thinking about things… i am more interested in dynamic debates that work toward solutions – than i am in arguements that aim soley to prove that one viewpoint is more ‘correct’ than another

why not assume that the ‘two camps’ you say we represent have common interests and start there?

for now i MUST go be a responsible student, parent, individual – and blog off

my regards,

i won’t have time to reply to this; mid-terms
but to say that i’ve addressed each of your points
and the bottom line is: you “believe” in a certain perspective
no matter what the complicated and diverse issues surrounding the issue are
and this makes the whole debate one that is anything BUT directed toward problem solving

u say murder must defined, i say it has been, then u say it must still be defined, and i say it already has been… questioning law is good, yes… but the extent to which this particular law has been examined is beyond that of most any other ever implimented – because the diversity of what people believe is overtly implimented in the investigation… the subject of whether this is murder of not has been and con’t to be thoroughly re-investigated is not neglected nor are such laws arbitrarily constructed

one more thing: when comparing pregnancy issues to that of slavery, look up the definition of slavery, look up the process of pregnancy (not to speak of parenting) and tell me that the definition isn’t most similar to the relationship that women have with pregnancy… the foetus is not enslaved by the mother – precisely the opposite is biologically, psychologically and emotionally true. The foetus dependency is (to a large extend) not one that the host voluntarily agrees to, the foetus TAKES and the host body involuntarily provides. if the health of the mother is in question, the foetus will in fact suffer LAST as it is automatically provided what it is needed FIRST.

its not a sufficient (logically) comparison or metaphor to start with – but since it is paramount to your view it seemed to warrent comment.

i’ll come back when there is more time to

a bientot…