Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:17 am

xander wrote:Feud: You still have not answered one of the questions that I asked much earlier in the topic (or, if you have, I missed it entirely, and can't find it by reading back in the topic). It is a well known fact that no form of birth control is perfect. Therefore, the only way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to not have sex. Does this mean that I should not have sex with my wife, out of fear that her pills won't work, and we might have to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

xander


Sorry, I just got back a few hours ago (read the book Starship Troopers on the plane, excellent book!).

If abortion were illegal, or if you wanted to avoid pregnancy in the first place, that is the only option you have to guarantee such a result. But, if abortion is already an option, then it doesn't really matter, does it?

What I am saying (perhaps not as clearly as I would have liked) is that I feel that a child is sacred, and that in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy there is only one 100% effective solution. Couples are free to do as they wish, but the unplanned or unwanted results should not be paid for with the potential life of the unborn child.

If abortions are legal, then my advice is just that, advice. If they are illegal, then it is the most effective solution to prevent pregnancy.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:49 am

Feud wrote:--==<snip>==--

That doesn't really answer the question, because your stated cause is to outlaw abortion, except in some rare instances. So, in your ideal world, a married couple that gets pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant cannot terminate. Are you suggesting that such a couple should not have sex?

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:15 am

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:--==<snip>==--

That doesn't really answer the question, because your stated cause is to outlaw abortion, except in some rare instances. So, in your ideal world, a married couple that gets pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant cannot terminate. Are you suggesting that such a couple should not have sex?

xander


I am suggesting that in my ideal world that couples enjoy each others company as they please. If they get pregnant when they did not want to or intend to, that they keep the child raise him/her as though they did. Or, if they feel their situation is such that they cannot provide a proper home, that they allow a couple who can provide a loving, healthy home to do so.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:55 am

xander wrote: You are not "agreeing to disagree." You are attempting to refute the points made by others, then trying to make yourself look victimized by calling "why can't we all just get along?!" If you really want people to drop it, stop using faulty logic to attempt to refute their points. If you make a post that says nothing more than "let's just agree to disagree," no one would be able to respond with further refutations, because there would be nothing more to refute.


Nope. I'm showing why your arguments do not work by my logic, thus showing that in fact we do not agree simply because we think differently. The reason I'm insisting the point is because we're going around in circles for some time now, arguing definitions.
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:04 am

I'm yet to hear a pro-lifer who is also an atheist.

If there are any out there, please do come forward.


Until then, anyone claiming that there should be a law denying abortion is attempting to force their own religious beliefs upon the wider community.
If people are prepared to admit they they want everyone else to abide by their morals based on religious belief, then there is a discussion. Until then, the real issue is just being skirted.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:14 am

Cooper42 wrote:I'm yet to hear a pro-lifer who is also an atheist.

If there are any out there, please do come forward.


Here! *waves*
User avatar
LordSturm
level4
level4
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Australia - No Nukes :(
Contact:

Depends...

Postby LordSturm » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:30 pm

Provided you intend to have at least ONE CHILD, in the future, that you will ensure lives to be a happy one, then feel free to abort each and every one of your spawn.

But DON'T YOU DARE DO IT TO A ONLY SON/DAUGHTER THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS COMPANY!

:D

Can't you just use contraception in the first place peoples? :P
"Surely you didn't mean to press that button just then did you?"
"No, nor will i disarm the nukes."
"Oh well, I will have my Fighters shoot them down."
"Sure you will."
"Oh NOES, ITS BEEN PATCHED!!!"
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:36 pm

Feud wrote:I am suggesting that in my ideal world that couples enjoy each others company as they please. If they get pregnant when they did not want to or intend to, that they keep the child raise him/her as though they did. Or, if they feel their situation is such that they cannot provide a proper home, that they allow a couple who can provide a loving, healthy home to do so.

You are still avoiding the question, though you came much closer to it this time. You say that a married couple should be able to "enjoy each other's company as they please," but you suggest that they should be forced to keep any child that is conceived, or give that child up for adoption. So, because no form of birth control is 100% effective, you are basically telling me that any couple that does not want to have a child should not have sex. This is a simple, yes or no kind of question.

A married couple does not want to have children right now. They may want to later, so they don't opt for surgical methods of birth control. The woman is on birth control pills, the man is on male birth control pills (there are a few in testing, last I heard, so this isn't an unreasonable possibility), the man wears a condom, and the woman wears a diaphragm (both of which, by the way, should be unnecessary between a married couple, in my opinion, but I am going to make this case as strong as I can). Despite all of this, the woman still gets pregnant.

Should she be allowed to terminate, in your ideal world? Yes or no.

LordSturm wrote:Can't you just use contraception in the first place peoples? :P

People should use contraception. There should be more education about contraception. Groups opposed to abortion should really adopt contraception as part of their message (unlike some of the signs I saw in Oklahoma when I was there this spring -- "Birth control pills cause cancer" and such). That doesn't change the fact that contraceptives are not 100% effective.

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:49 pm

xander wrote:You are still avoiding the question, though you came much closer to it this time. You say that a married couple should be able to "enjoy each other's company as they please," but you suggest that they should be forced to keep any child that is conceived, or give that child up for adoption. So, because no form of birth control is 100% effective, you are basically telling me that any couple that does not want to have a child should not have sex. This is a simple, yes or no kind of question.


No, I am not saying that they should not. I am saying that they should act as they feel right, but that the unborn child should not be denied life on account of the parents desires. However they feel is best to prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place is thier buisness.

xander wrote:A married couple does not want to have children right now. They may want to later, so they don't opt for surgical methods of birth control. The woman is on birth control pills, the man is on male birth control pills (there are a few in testing, last I heard, so this isn't an unreasonable possibility), the man wears a condom, and the woman wears a diaphragm (both of which, by the way, should be unnecessary between a married couple, in my opinion, but I am going to make this case as strong as I can). Despite all of this, the woman still gets pregnant.

Should she be allowed to terminate, in your ideal world? Yes or no.

xander


I am going to assume that the situation is based upon a normal pregnancy, free from unusual health risks and such. In such a case I do not think that abortion is justified, nor do I think it should be a legal option.

::Watches the bear trap close around his leg as xander moves in for the kill::
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:12 pm

So, if a married couple gets pregnant when they do not want to be pregnant, despite using birth control, they should not be allowed to terminate. That is your answer right?

By logical extension, a married couple should not have sex if they do not want a child. This is the logical extension of your statement, as pregnancy is always a risk that goes along with sex, no matter how much birth control is used. Is this a statement that you agree with? Yes or no: A married couple that does not want a child should not have sex.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:30 pm

xander wrote:So, if a married couple gets pregnant when they do not want to be pregnant, despite using birth control, they should not be allowed to terminate. That is your answer right?

Right. (that is mine) :wink:

xander wrote:By logical extension, a married couple should not have sex if they do not want a child. This is the logical extension of your statement, as pregnancy is always a risk that goes along with sex, no matter how much birth control is used. Is this a statement that you agree with? Yes or no: A married couple that does not want a child should not have sex.

xander

Yes, if they are so adamant about not having children that they would choose to have an abortion to take away the consequences, then yes they should abstain or at least better educate themselves on how the ovulation process works to at least reduce the risk of pregnancy. However, maybe I'm just blind here, I would assume that most couples would accept the pregnancy and move on with life.
Last edited by Ace Rimmer on Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:30 pm

xander wrote:So, if a married couple gets pregnant when they do not want to be pregnant, despite using birth control, they should not be allowed to terminate. That is your answer right?


Yes.

xander wrote:By logical extension, a married couple should not have sex if they do not want a child. This is the logical extension of your statement, as pregnancy is always a risk that goes along with sex, no matter how much birth control is used. Is this a statement that you agree with? Yes or no: A married couple that does not want a child should not have sex.

xander


No, I don't neccesarily agree with that statement. A married couple that does not want a child shold behave however they please. If that behavior results in a child, then I think they should either keep the child and treat it as if they wanted it all along, or they should allow a loving family who would give it a good home to adopt it. If both of those options are unsuitable to the couple, then they are open to what ever legal options to prevent a pregnancy, and are free to chose what ever meathod they feel would provide the greatest cost/benifit result.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:44 pm

Ace, the question was not directed at you, as you have already proven to me that your world view is so vastly incompatible with my own as to make me question your humanity. If you feel the need to respond, feel free, but I am no longer responding to you, or attempting to debate with you.

Feud wrote:No, I don't neccesarily agree with that statement. A married couple that does not want a child shold behave however they please. If that behavior results in a child, then I think they should either keep the child and treat it as if they wanted it all along, or they should allow a loving family who would give it a good home to adopt it.

Irrelevant. The couple doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place. In the scenario above, any pregnancy at all is a bad result.

Feud wrote:If both of those options are unsuitable to the couple, then they are open to what ever legal options to prevent a pregnancy, and are free to chose what ever meathod they feel would provide the greatest cost/benifit result.

Irrelevant. We are discussing your hypothetical world, in which abortion is illegal.

The logical conclusion of your statements is that married couples should not have sex at all, unless they want to get pregnant. If they do not want to get pregnant, then they have no option but to abstain. Adoption is not an option, because they don't want to be pregnant in the first place. Keeping the child is not an option, because they do not want to be pregnant in the first place. Before I continue, do you understand that this is the only logical outcome of the statements that you have made?

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:56 pm

xander wrote:Ace, the question was not directed at you, as you have already proven to me that your world view is so vastly incompatible with my own as to make me question your humanity. If you feel the need to respond, feel free, but I am no longer responding to you, or attempting to debate with you.

To be honest, I only posted because Feud mentioned a bear trap and I felt somewhat obligated as I started this thread. :wink:

Also, you must understand that my views are simply that, my views. I do not believe that I or any religious group/groups have the power to force their views on anybody else, especially the rest of society as a whole. In this world, it's up to the government to make the decisions, I just told you my views on the subject. I asked a question, others answered it (original post) then others asked me a question and I answered it.

In short, you don't have to worry about me coming and knocking down your door to "save" you or anything of the like.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:03 pm

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:No, I don't neccesarily agree with that statement. A married couple that does not want a child shold behave however they please. If that behavior results in a child, then I think they should either keep the child and treat it as if they wanted it all along, or they should allow a loving family who would give it a good home to adopt it.

Irrelevant. The couple doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place. In the scenario above, any pregnancy at all is a bad result.


Granted, I was just reinforcing my ideal solution.

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:If both of those options are unsuitable to the couple, then they are open to what ever legal options to prevent a pregnancy, and are free to chose what ever meathod they feel would provide the greatest cost/benifit result.

Irrelevant. We are discussing your hypothetical world, in which abortion is illegal.


I know, and abortion was not an option I had included in such. The point I was trying to make is that life is a series of risks which we accept based upon a cost/benifit basis that we personally determine. Everytime I drive I risk death or injury, but I think the benifits of driving are worth it. Every tiime I east food I have not personally prepared I risk consuming something harmful, but I find the benifit to out weigh the cost. In the case of a couple, even with abortion illegal, I think that they should decided whether the benifits of abstinence out weighs the cost.


xander wrote:The logical conclusion of your statements is that married couples should not have sex at all, unless they want to get pregnant. If they do not want to get pregnant, then they have no option but to abstain. Adoption is not an option, because they don't want to be pregnant in the first place. Keeping the child is not an option, because they do not want to be pregnant in the first place. Before I continue, do you understand that this is the only logical outcome of the statements that you have made?


I agree that if a couple, under no uncertain terms, wants to be 100% free of pregnancy then yes, abstaining is their only option. But I disagree with saying they should not have relations unless they "want to get pregnant". I would say that they should not have those realtions unless they are willing to accept the potentially long lasting consequences of their actions. Wanting a result and accepting that a result may be a potential consequence of a given action are two differant things.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest