Abortion video

[Uzor]

At least in Sweden, the age for strerelization is 23. That is also the age that they will allow people to undergo a sex change.

 

[Zephayra]

At least in Sweden, the age for strerelization is 23. That is also the age that they will allow people to undergo a sex change.

I've never actually asked a doctor what the age they will actually perform a sterilization, but my friend's mother, either during her late 30's or early 40's, had a difficult time getting one. She did get sterilized, but they were constantly trying to persuade her to change her mind, saying she might want to have another child. So someone at the age between 20-30 would probably have an even harder time.

Don't they have a procedure now where you can reverse sterilization anyways?

 

[Kiere]

My husband had a vasectomy before he was 30.


Anyhow...just wanted to put my perspective out there. I like many people am on the fence. As a woman I do not want the government telling me what I can/cannot do with my body.

Now...As a mother...I could not imagine ever having an abortion. Honestly short of truly believing my own life to be in extreme jeopardy I cannot imagine any reason that would cause me to even consider an abortion.

I feel that a lot of medically unnecesary abortions are simply due to the fact that so many people have little to no accountability or personal responsibility. The very first time I had sex I knew that I was risking pregnancy (even with the use of birth control) and that the consequences COULD be an unplanned pregnancy. I accepted that risk AND the consequences.

People act as if they have no control..."sex is going to happen" (because we can't help ourselves?) Why? Well because there are little to no consequences.

I find it pretty disgusting over the amount of people here who think accidental pregnancies should be taken full term because "they knew the consequences."

Having to take care of a child shouldn't be a form of punishment, and all saying that does is make you seem like you do not know what the birth process entails financially, physically, and mentally. Sure, you can give the child up to adoption.. afterwards. But it's not like they just magically appear like in The Sims.

It's not a form of punishment...its a consequence (a known possible consequence btw) of choosing to perform a specific act.

personally I'd say anyone who says you can't end another persons life should think about when does life really start. When your just a few cells, maybe once you finally form a heart with a beat or a brain that actually has processes going on?

I dunno I always think to myself abortion isin't really killing anything that wasn't alive in the 1st place if it doesn't even have a heart yet.

My first pregnancy ended early (at about 6 weeks) in a miscarriage. I started to have some bleeding early in my second pregnancy and feared another miscarriage (again...early on). The doctor performed an ultrasound...and what did I see? The baby's beating heart! I was so relieved to find my baby was "alive". Ask a mother who has carried a baby to term to tell you that their in utero baby isn't a "person". When you KNOW your baby has responded to your voice or your husbands. When you see them sucking their thumb on an ultrasound.

I am not anti-abortion. I am pro responsibility. I do not want laws...but what I yearn to see is people taking responsibility and accepting the consequences of their decisions. People want to be victims to the happenings in their own lives. The fact is we make choices all the time...even if our choice is to not choose. I am one of those people that believe that things happen for a reason even if we never get to understand the reason. As I said above...my husband has had a vasectomy (a choice we made at the beginning of our marriage because I already had two children from a previous marriage and we did not want to have any more) but if I were to somehow become pregnant then we would raise that child to the very best of our abilities.

 

[Darkdante]

In which case you're a liar or a drama queen, since you said you dedicated a whole post for it, thus calling me a moron for not reading it.

In which case, the post were very either short, or said post don't exist. On either case, you're a liar since you said you had seen the original video posted.

How about you quote me instead of blowing bullshit?

 

[Uzor]

How about you quote me instead of blowing bullshit?

ok.

On post #204, you quoted me asking "Did you even watch the video?". Your answer was the following:

This is how I know you can't fucking read since I have an entire post devoted to answering exactly this question.

This indicates that you dedicated an entire post answering that question, thus statign that you either answered the video in the question, or a whole post stating that you did or did not watch the video.

In post #208, you said the following:

Obviously since I said I did not watch the video. Fucking idiot...........

I Ignore your arguments because you ask arguments that has already been asked in the thread and answered.

Need I remind you, though, that you still have not answered several arguments that have NOT been answered earlier in the thread, simply because you have no answer. Although I do believe you tried to make yourself look good by saying that. Naturally, if you had answered them earlier, you could just quote yourself.

Either way, that's you saying you had not watched the video.

In post #211, you quote yourself saying this:

lol, I didnt watch the video. I saw an abortion video once, I dont need to see that again.

I asked if you had seen the original video posted, you said you dedicated an entire post to it. That's a misleading answer. You tried to avoid the argument by answering with a misleading answer. Yo ualso felt the need to attempt to insult me to strenghten your own argument. In either case, that failed, and later on you admit to not watching the video. Which makes you a drama queen, since you said you dedicated a whole post to answering that very question. Obviously, your post were very short in that case, or you didn't dedicate it at all.

How about you stop prancing around the bush like a little school girl? Soon the pedofile might jump out and rape you. And remember, you're not allowed to perform an abortion. That would make you a murderer, by the definition of those in the video that you did not watch, but still defend by saying that they don't consider it a murder, even though the people in the video prance around with signs saying it is.

 

[Darkdante]

Dude Uzor. Are you really this stupid?

This is breaking new ground even for you.

I REPEAT! IDIOT!

Quote me where I said I saw the video.

 

[Darkdante]

I nominate you Uzor!

The stupidest person on QCDN!

 

[Tyrath]

How many people died in the name of science? Should we therefore deny all scientific progress or education?

For the record, a majority of the religious atrocities are done by religious fanaticals in the name of progress and improvement. While, it is amazing that they can garner such huge support in the name of religion while committing such heinous attrocities, it's not uncommon even outside of religion. Ever been or seen a mob? After sporting events, like the World Cup, the Superbowl and the World Series, there is often a mass riot involving many inebriated sports fans (fanatics). You can argue there is a difference because of the alcohal, but it's not that vast.

I am atheist by the way.

I personally think fanatics of sports are just as dumb as fanatics of religion.

And I know people have died in the name of science. At least they died for something that exists though, eh?:spiteful:

 

[Cecilee]

I've never actually asked a doctor what the age they will actually perform a sterilization, but my friend's mother, either during her late 30's or early 40's, had a difficult time getting one. She did get sterilized, but they were constantly trying to persuade her to change her mind, saying she might want to have another child. So someone at the age between 20-30 would probably have an even harder time.

Don't they have a procedure now where you can reverse sterilization anyways?

Something like 25% of women from 20-30 regret having their tubes tied. That makes most surgeons decline surgery, especially since it amazingly only works about as well as condoms plus contraceptives. To make them hesitate even more, tube tying reversal success is only like 50-60%. That leaves the surgeon with the conscience of having 12% of women wishing they'd never had a tubal, now left without the possibility of having a child. Surgeons are cold, but usually not cold enough to take that cash.

 

[Valoran]

I personally think fanatics of sports are just as dumb as fanatics of religion.

And I know people have died in the name of science. At least they died for something that exists though, eh?:spiteful:

I'll give you a hundred percent guarantee that religion exists. ;P

 

[Zephayra]

Something like 25% of women from 20-30 regret having their tubes tied. That makes most surgeons decline surgery, especially since it amazingly only works about as well as condoms plus contraceptives. To make them hesitate even more, tube tying reversal success is only like 50-60%. That leaves the surgeon with the conscience of having 12% of women wishing they'd never had a tubal, now left without the possibility of having a child. Surgeons are cold, but usually not cold enough to take that cash.

Fair enough.

However, on a personal note, I feel that those women who have had their tubes tied or cut and then decide after that they want to have a child are being EXTREMELY selfish. They could easily adopt a child desperately in need of a loving home and family rather than attempting the 50-60% successful reversal of their surgery.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Ok, time for me to jump back in.

I was watching a video about Chernobyl when I saw a clip from an orphanage for mentally ill children and a thought occured to me:

People care more for children before they are born than after the fact.

There are millions of dollars spent every year on anti-abortion campaigns that could be better spent on children that are alive in this world and have no one to care for them. Donate to an orphanage, buy a toy and give it to that kid sleeping on the street that you step over on your way to the protest. Cut your double quarter pounder with cheese in half and give it to the guy sifting through the dumpster outside. If you want to pretend to care, pretend to care about someone that can appreciate it.

Ever stop to think these people may want some help?

There is more to the life of children than from conception to birth. There are millions of children who make it out of the womb and live life like this, but a whole lot less people care about it because they can "fend for themselves".

 

[Valoran]

I agree with Trippy's last post in certain respects, but both the presentation and the argument leave a bit to be desired.

The question of whether society has a duty to those born into circumstances where "traditional" institutions (e.g., the nurturing nuclear family) don't support the child effectively is a good issue to raise.

However, the entire thrust of its logic functions only if you take the protasis of the opponent's argument to be true. That is, ONLY IF you agree to the premise, "Abortion is wrong," can you effect any kind of moral leverage on caring for the born, and ONLY to people who already believe in the wrongness of abortion.

I prefer to approach the argument from a different angle that cuts out this unnecessary angle. You can focus on the other issues as "other issues" and get a lot more done on them, without catching them up in sticky old nuances of an abortion debate that's gone on for some time. People are willing to get on board with "help impoverished children" when they don't feel like they have to sign on to "and the unborn!" in the same breath. Funny thing is, you seem to be militating for the opposite viewpoint anyway. I think you should get out of your opponent's language and speak in terms of what really matters to you.

And posting terrible pictures is shock value. It raises interest or sympathy for a moment, but if you want to get people to change, you need to make them want to change, and the simple, basic, and consistent response to offensive media stimuli is to try to distance yourself from it. Put simply, posting shock-pics shocks people . . . then makes them want to quit paying attention to you and your issue. They're maybe useful for getting a mob to do something (including, say, a mob of people at a donors banquet where they expect to provide money to a cause and you can raise their sympathy better with a picture than with numbers to a level you feel is appropriate to the cause), but in a casual forum board argument, it borders on the obscene and I don't think it does you any favors in terms of getting people to think.

 

[Trippyhippy]

I agree with Trippy's last post in certain respects, but both the presentation and the argument leave a bit to be desired.

The question of whether society has a duty to those born into circumstances where "traditional" institutions (e.g., the nurturing nuclear family) don't support the child effectively is a good issue to raise.

I think it is a good issue to raise because people are so worried about the rights of the unborn the totally forget about the suffering of the people that are already here.

However, the entire thrust of its logic functions only if you take the protasis of the opponent's argument to be true. That is, ONLY IF you agree to the premise, "Abortion is wrong," can you effect any kind of moral leverage on caring for the born, and ONLY to people who already believe in the wrongness of abortion.

That post was directed at the people that believe abortion is so wrong and cruel. My point is it can save people from living life like that, and their concerns should be with people that are alive and suffering instead of trying to make sure unwanted babies are born against the will of the mother so they can live a life of pain and suffering.

I prefer to approach the argument from a different angle that cuts out this unnecessary angle. You can focus on the other issues as "other issues" and get a lot more done on them, without catching them up in sticky old nuances of an abortion debate that's gone on for some time. People are willing to get on board with "help impoverished children" when they don't feel like they have to sign on to "and the unborn!" in the same breath. Funny thing is, you seem to be militating for the opposite viewpoint anyway. I think you should get out of your opponent's language and speak in terms of what really matters to you.

The best way to make your "opponent" understand you is to speak in their language. This will be about as effective as the pictures of partial birth abortion they put in the newspapers, except these are real pics not just hand drawn diagrams.

And posting terrible pictures is shock value. It raises interest or sympathy for a moment, but if you want to get people to change, you need to make them want to change, and the simple, basic, and consistent response to offensive media stimuli is to try to distance yourself from it. Put simply, posting shock-pics shocks people . . . then makes them want to quit paying attention to you and your issue.

I don't neccesarilly want people to change, I just want people to realize that a lot of people that are pro-life don't give 2 shits about what happens to babies after they are born. In one breath they'll talk about how wrong abortion is and in the next they will talk about how they are tired of their tax dollars going to pay for welfare of people that don't do anything but sit around and make babies.

They're maybe useful for getting a mob to do something (including, say, a mob of people at a donors banquet where they expect to provide money to a cause and you can raise their sympathy better with a picture than with numbers to a level you feel is appropriate to the cause), but in a casual forum board argument, it borders on the obscene and I don't think it does you any favors in terms of getting people to think.

Is the truth obscene? Yes, sometimes it is obscene and that's why it needs to be illustrated. Each of those pictures are worth ten million words, and they do make people think. I have gotten a couple of rate up comments on it already. People need to prioritize. You take care of the worst problems first. If your head is on fire and you have a splinter, you don't start looking for tweezers.

 

[Uzor]

I nominate you Uzor!

The stupidest person on QCDN!

Because a nomination from the stupidest person on QCDN really matters :wacko:

and you said you dedicated a whole post to the question "Did you even watch the video?". So yes, that IS a misleading answer. Which I already covered, but I guess you're too stupid to be able to read that.

 

[Darkdante]

Because a nomination from the stupidest person on QCDN really matters :wacko:

and you said you dedicated a whole post to the question "Did you even watch the video?". So yes, that IS a misleading answer. Which I already covered, but I guess you're too stupid to be able to read that.

Ok lemme quote that to you a second time then.

lol, I didnt watch the video. I saw an abortion video once, I dont need to see that again.

I guess it can be misleading when your a European retard.

 

[Cecilee]

Fair enough.

However, on a personal note, I feel that those women who have had their tubes tied or cut and then decide after that they want to have a child are being EXTREMELY selfish. They could easily adopt a child desperately in need of a loving home and family rather than attempting the 50-60% successful reversal of their surgery.

IIRC they have to pay out of pocket for the reversal, as well as the fertility treatments that usually are required. It might be selfish to decide to go through all that instead of adopting a kid that needs a home, but there's no such thing as a newborn adoptee that doesn't get a home, and kids that get taken away from parents past the age of 3 or 4 are usually broken children. One could argue that they aren't being selfish, because they, unlike some other couples, at least have a chance to conceive. They could potentially take a baby away from a couple with no chance to conceive if they choose to adopt.

 

[ogami]

Well....

Well all you people who believe in the christian doctrine believe that abortion is wrong think about this.

All aborted fetuses go to heaven, since they are human beings that have not sinned. Therefore the mother who aborted the fetus is considered a martyr since she sacrificed her salvation to populate heaven by aborting the "concieved soul." And the purpose of christianity is to allow more people to "gain access" to heaven. So tell me, how that does not comply with the christian doctrine, please site verse and word of the bible too, <I'm interested> in finding out why it's wrong.

 

[Valoran]

Well all you people who believe in the christian doctrine believe that abortion is wrong think about this.

All aborted fetuses go to heaven, since they are human beings that have not sinned. Therefore the mother who aborted the fetus is considered a martyr since she sacrificed her salvation to populate heaven by aborting the "concieved soul." And the purpose of christianity is to allow more people to "gain access" to heaven. So tell me, how that does not comply with the christian doctrine, please site verse and word of the bible too, <I'm interested> in finding out why it's wrong.

Many traditions actually hold that human beings are conceived and born with "Original Sin," which is derived from the moment when Eve gave in to allowing the devil to add something to God's already-perfect statement, therefore making it less what it was originally, which was perfect (the devil adds the word, "perhaps" in Genesis 3 . . . I'm a little tired to provide the chapter/verse you asked for). These traditions hold that it is only through baptism that human beings enter into the redemption offered by the sacrifice of God's son Jesus through crucifixion, and thus aborted fetuses and unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.

Other traditions offer that the unbaptized who have only original sin charged against their soul go to neither heaven nor hell, but purgatory, which is a state filled with neither heavenly love nor eternal torment.

There's your short answer.

You're wrong in proposing that the aborting women should be considered martyrs BY THAT FRAMEWORK (please nobody confuse this for my own thoughts). UNDER THAT FRAMEWORK, the aborting women are seen as murderers who will have the sin not only of murder but of preventing these infants from the possibility of baptism. Furthermore, murder being a commandment breach (Thou shalt not kill), the mother's soul is placed in jeapordy. So two souls are lost with each abortion, NOT saved. That's the reasoning.

You're also wrong to conflate "Christian doctrine" and "the verse and word of the Bible." Christian doctrine is based on a lot of things, and very few Christians take the time to read and understand the Bible. Even so, the Catholic church has a trickle-down heirarchy for its theology, and most protestant traditions lean heavily on Martin Luther, who totally loved Genesis 3 and its implications . . . Luther believed very strongly that Augustine had written of a fallen human being that was saved only by the grace of God (in many ways, the Reformation in the 1600s was a fight over who was correctly interpreting Augustine). In this tradition, baptism is one weapon, and being brought to the despair of knowing how utterly sinful you are is the other (at which point you can truly believe in God because you finally realize you can't possibly do anything whatsofuckingever to save yourself). Anyway, cheerful guy, but not likely to support your statements.

There's my History of Christian Thought 101 course.

 

[Cecilee]

If Christianity slips to being a passive religion, then it would be better for the kiddo to not be born at all, and thus go to heaven in a 1:1 ratio. Christianity on paper aims at more like at least a 5:1 goal--that one life is supposed to get more than just one soul into heaven. Then again, one could hardly argue that a mother who has seven abortions would be congratulated for saving seven people when she gets to heaven, so I don't know.