<p>neither do all abortions...</p>
<p>neither does all birth control...</p>
<p>just because it doesnt work in all cases, doesnt mean it cant be tried, like people often try birth control.</p>
<p>Natural family planning, by its very nature, is flawed though. It relies on imprecise measurements to determine fertility, and it assumes that all women have a regular cycle too. And yes, no contraceptive has a 100% success rate, but some variants of the Pill are very close if taken correctly, or a combination of more than one method. (the Pill and condoms for example)</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe if women knew the seriousness and danger of a backalley abortion, they wouldnt find themselves so desperate to rid themselves of their baby anymore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Backalley abortions ARE the result of desperation. What I imagine those of you who are pro-life would concetrate on is reducing the TOTAL number of deaths, which includes that of the mother.</p>
<p>yea but you can still give it a chance...a family i know uses it, and the wife is in charge of the clinic for it here in town, and it hasnt ever failed them. and yes i agree its flawed, but then again, just about every single thing ever made or done by man has a flaw.</p>
<p>Artificial methods of contraception are far better at preventing pregnancy than natural ones. With typical use, 1 in 4 women using natural family planning will become pregnant within 1 year. On the other hand, condoms have a 12% failure rate with typical use and the combined Pill has roughly a 1% failure rate.</p>
<p>not all back alley abortions are due to desperation, nor are all clinical abortions...they have a variety of reasons for them. sometimes the father doesnt want to have anything to do with it, so he forces the mother to get one, sometimes parents take their daughters to get one because they couldnt deal with the shame... people risking their lives for something would probably reconsider their desperation... like a person committing suicide...some people realize what they're doing and the danger of what they're doing and they reconsider. maybe not the majority but its a possibility. being poor isnt a reason for desperation...its an excuse</p>
<p>i cant speak for everyone who is prolife, but we do care about the mother too. but the fact is that we have to protect the innocent, ie the baby. if the woman never got pregnant, it wouldnt be an issue. she has a say in it, the baby doesnt. she doesnt have to get an abortion, she chooses to. </p>
<p>also being prolife is more than saving lives. it also means to just care about people. a woman who has an abortion is way most likely to become depressed from post-abortion depression. should any woman be subjected to this. this in and of it self is a reason to prohibit abortions...to save women from this. and if it wasnt a reason for concern the government wouldnt be doing so much research on this depression and its effects.</p>
<p>i do believe abstinence is the most natural way ever...and its fail proof. 100%</p>
<p>It's unrealistic to expect people to be abstinent before marriage, and only have sex within marriage for the purpose of procreation.</p>
<p>Abstinence doesn't account for rape. Or for people who want marriage without children.</p>
<p>This is just an anecdote, but I had a friend who got pregnant while using a condom AND on the depo provera shot. Ouch.</p>
<p>i never said it was realistic or practical...i just said it was 100% fail proof.
and i agree with the rape/marriage w/o children comment...but hey there's birth control for that! and even if its not guaranteed, most people seem to be in favor for it...esp rainbow kirby</p>
<p>oh and that would suck for your friend...but i guess it does show the 1% of failure of birth control!</p>
<p>i clearly distinguish it from murder in this sentence:</p>
<p>"(which distinguishes the situation from making murder legal; legalizing murder does not improve the circumstances of crime or its regulation)"</p>
<p>my solution was to PROMOTE ABSTINENCE AS WELL AS KEEPING ABORTION LEGAL. </p>
<p>legalizing abortion improves the circumstances of the crime by minimizing the number of women who have to get back-alley abortions, and makes it easier to regulate because now the abortions happened in clincs, with real physicians, and under actual government guidelines - usually set by the state, some of which include a waiting period, parent notification, spousal notification (not all of which I agree with, but which accentuate the point that legalized abortion is regulated). if you legalize murder, do you improve the circumstances of the crime - i.e. are the crimes less bloody? no. do less people die because crime happens in broad daylight now? no. do you improve regulation of the murder, by letting people kill each other in private or public, govt. regulated dueling grounds? do less people die that way, if they are killed in special dueling areas? No. </p>
<p>that's the difference.</p>
<p>its said if you say that its all about the ideals, that 'life is being killed' - because the only way to ensure there is less life lost is to keep abortion legal, and to save the only lives the government possibly can - the mother's. a woman who wants, perhaps needs, an abortion will get it, illegal or legal, and the 'baby' will always die. but a woman who gets a legal abortion, not some odd and dangerous solution like sticking a bottle of HCl in her womb (not only killing the baby, but severely damaging her reproductive organs, putting her in critical state, and rendering her sterile for the rest of her life, as with happened with one woman in Latin America), has a much higher chance of staying alive than one who got it illegally. that is what will happen. you can't just talk about the morals or ethics of a policy; you also have to take regard to its consequences.</p>
<p>once again, the constitution protects a woman's right to privacy, which under case-law (previous opinions by SCOTUS, normally upheld through the doctrine of stare decisis - respect for precedent) includes the woman/couple's right to use contraceptives, which means that they have the right to decide to procreate. the baby is part of the woman, inside her body (4th Amendment). she also has the right to procreate. </p>
<p>and far fewer people get backalley abortions now than before, pre-Roe, because of institutions like Planned Parenthood.</p>
<p>i think you're presenting a funny scenario:</p>
<p>if the woman has cancer and needs to get treated, but knows that either her baby will be in danger or will die as a result, it's OK for her to get treated and for the baby to die because it is 'unintended' (even though she knew beforehand that such death would be a result).</p>
<p>however, if the woman has another life-threatening condition and must get an abortion in order to survive, then it is not OK for her to get treated because abortions are bad and intended.</p>
<p>In both cases, the women need treatment to survive, and in both cases, the 'baby' is sacrificed to save the woman's life because 's*** happens' - but one is 'wrong' and one is 'right'. what's the difference? what differentiates this?</p>
<p>what about stealing? if you make it legal, you are helping people get what they need. you are allowing them to have a better lifestyle. legalizing the stealing of food alone will help a lot of people. sure the people who are stolen from wont benefit from it, but the babies killed dont benefit from the abortions either. you're improving the circumstances because if its legal, people dont have to worry about using guns or violence to steal stuff...no one else if threatened..you are also minimizing the number of hungry and poor people in the world, like the number of women needing back alley abortions. and as for regulations, well, really the gov't could regulate what's legal to steal and what's not. like living necessities and money's alright, but personal information isnt...it allows for more regulation and it improves the circumstances... so if abortion should be legal, why shouldnt stealing?</p>
<p>yes she/the couple has the right to procreate - the fundamental point of sex! but no where did you say she has the right to kill her fetus, and you wont find it. privacy? well if someone kills a family member, is that still a private affair? if parents kill their 5 year old, because they decided children werent for them, is that a privacy act that the gov't cant interfere with?</p>
<p>can you name any definite life threatening illnesses that there is absolutely no other solution than to abort the baby in order to have the woman survive? and by life threatening, i mean that she will die unless she gets an abortion and if she gets it she'll definitely live. i dont mean that lets say she has high blood pressure or something, that may or may not cause her immediate death. and that also means that there is absolutely no other treatment available to try. but what illness needs an abortion to clear it right up? and if that woman had a severe problem before hand, like heart failure or kidney failure, what was she doing having recreational sex anyway? and if she had these problems before hand, an abortion may be just as dangerous to her health.</p>
<p>
[quote]
can you name any definite life threatening illnesses that there is absolutely no other solution than to abort the baby in order to have the woman survive? and by life threatening, i mean that she will die unless she gets an abortion and if she gets it she'll definitely live.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Certain pregnancy complications, perhaps.</p>
<p>"yes she/the couple has the right to procreate - the fundamental point of sex! but no where did you say she has the right to kill her fetus, and you wont find it. privacy?"</p>
<p>um. the Constitution doesn't say you have a right to sing either. Or a right to play tennis, basketball, or any sport. It doesn't say you have the right to drink water, eat hamburgers - or anything like that. It doesn't even say people have the right to procreate. But that doesn't mean we don't have these rights - that's what the 9th Amendment says: </p>
<p>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "</p>
<p>yes, and people should also have the right to choose whether they want to procreate. </p>
<p>"well if someone kills a family member, is that still a private affair? if parents kill their 5 year old, because they decided children werent for them, is that a privacy act that the gov't cant interfere with?"</p>
<p>um, when I said private, I clearly mentioned its because the fetus is INSIDE THE WOMAN'S BODY. If someone kills a family member...is that family member inside their body? in any way connected physically? no. (lol, except conjoined twins, maybe) first of all you haven't even established that life begins at conception anyway. i think you mistake, once again, my argument. read the part where i say that a woman has the right to control her own body. the fetus, until birth, is part of her body. can the government interfere with her breasts and prevent her from getting plastic surgery or such? no. that's a violation of privacy. not murder within the family. the family members, are once again, not part of her physical body. </p>
<p>for stealing:</p>
<p>"no one else if threatened"</p>
<p>i'd argue that the people that you steal the stuff from are threatened, because they lose money. they go out of business because everything is looted. they lose their way of life. that's definitely being 'threatened' - whereas a woman getting an abortion in no way makes someone else lose their way of life.</p>
<p>"really the gov't could regulate what's legal to steal and what's not.. reduce the number of hungry and poor people in the world"</p>
<p>i would argue that you put people out of business - so they become 'poor and hungry' and then they steal their 'basic necessities and money' from others, and then those other people become 'poor and hungry' - this wouldn't reduce the nubmer, it'd just transplating the problem. the people who are poor and hungry now might not be poor and hungry after, but others will - so that eventually the number of people falling into poverty equals the number falling out of poverty. it's a vicious cycle. </p>
<p>so, no, the stealing argument doesn't work because it doesn't improve any circumstances - people will still be poor, given maybe they're different people from before. </p>
<p>silentsailor is right about the pregnancy complications - why do you think that so many women used to die after childbirth? </p>
<p>"and if she had these problems before hand, an abortion may be just as dangerous to her health." abortion is actually pretty safe now, with the pill. not having the abortion, however, and having to carry a baby to term - now that is physically - and emotionally - very straining, especially under the circumstances that you may not live if you don't abort.</p>
<p>no stealing still works...hey the gov't really could regulate how much is stolen...i doubt if everyone would follow it, but then again not everyone follows the abortion regulations now anyway...lets say they cant take from people to the point that they dont have the necessities of life...and some people would be able to get rid of a lot and still maintain their current living arrangements. and as for people getting harmed...what about the fetus/baby. despite what you say, its still getting harmed. so if its alright to harm a fetus during an abortion and take away its life, whats wrong with someone losing a little money. they could always get that money back, whereas a baby/fetus will never get its life back. </p>
<p>'used to die after childbirth'. abortion hasnt been the solution for this. modern medicine has. and if attribute only to the legalizing of abortion you're kidding yourself. complications can be treated for. and if by treating them, like during an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus dies, its not the fault of the doctor...its the fault of the complication....same you could say i guess if a person dies in a hospital...it may not be the doctors fault...it could just be they couldnt save her.</p>
<p>The person who is being stolen from has clear unalienable rights. The fetus, however, does not. That is the difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not all back alley abortions are due to desperation
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are they due to, then? </p>
<p>
[quote]
like during an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus dies, its not the fault of the doctor...its the fault of the complication....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Altough, from your point of view, that doctor could for example be tried for murder (or at least malpratice) for neglience that leads to death. Right?</p>
<p>But really consgrafelope, if you want us to take you seriously, you have to stop creating massive false analogies. The flaws in your analogies have been pointed out repeatedly - they aren't all that hard to see. You choose to ignore this and build onto the analogy, serving no purpose to either your side or the debate in general. It's very hard to respond to your arguments when you have a one sentence point, and the rest is continous rambling, followed by constant emotional appeals to the innocence of the fetus and why it should get the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>Yes, backalley abortions are fun and easy. Everyone should go and have one! But seriously what else besides being desperate and out of options would lead to a backalley abortion?</p>
<p>
[quote]
eggs and sperm dont have brains...they are basically animals....they'll never have self control...they'll never, in and by themselves become humans....and menstruation and masturbation arent going to create babies by the acts alone
[/quote]
uhh... they will have the potential for self control once the egg is fertilized. (fetuses have no self-control either - you still fail to draw a distinction)
obviously menstruation and masturbation aren't going to create babies - they kill the egg/sperm. My argument was that outlawing these is just as logical, under your argumentation, as outlawing abortion. An unfertilized egg, a sperm and a fetus all fit the criterion you set - they have the potential to become a full human life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yes i know running over a human is a crime. i'm not stupid. but i question that about you....i said to say that accidentally running over an animal is a crime is nonsense...and if you think that by saying that i also meant running over humans (some people believe animal = humans) you must also be up for the whole world is a hunting ground idea. we hunt animals, and if you think we're animals, why not hunt each other right?
[/quote]
....I was working off my claim that a fetus is nothing more than an animal. It doesn't become human until sometime after birth.</p>
<p>
uhh...no it doesn't. if it does please enlighten me with a citation.</p>
<p>if stealing was made legal, like abortion is, the people being stolen from wouldnt have those rights. and if abortion was made illegal the baby would have rights... that just depends on the law. i was using a hypothetical situation...'if' stealing was made legal...then my case would be true....and 'if' abortion was made illegal, the baby would have those rights.</p>
<p>"if you want us to take you seriously," thats funny, cause from the way i look it, the amount of time you've spent arguing with me shows that you do take me seriously...which is why you've spent so much time on here. if you didnt, you wouldnt care, which makes me wonder why you even bother posting on the thread...</p>
<p>a pregant woman is never out of options...there is always other options...keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption... not wanting your baby doesnt automatically make you desperate.</p>
<p>yes ONCE the egg is fertilized... sperm in and of itself never will... an egg in and of itself never... once the two come together, they make a life/baby/fetus...and then, and only then does it have potential to have self control.. so sperm or egg, no - baby/fetus, yes!</p>
<p>and how do you know it becomes human right at or after birth.. is there a reason why you believe this? do you remember that one moment in time you became a human? or have you watched a newborn become human right before your eyes? cause if you have i've got to see this, and if you havent what do you base that argument off of? i still fail to see the differences, other than dependence, to make it become automatically human once its born. and even then, once again, third trimester babies arent completely dependent...they could be taken out and still live. and newborns, can still live, but they still need someone to care for them...</p>
<p>"learning from surroundings..." and i was pointing out that a baby/fetus learns from its surroundings too... so how is that a difference???</p>
<p>besides all the declaration of independence has to say on the issue... Amendment XIV section 1 : "deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property.." and dont argue that a baby/fetus isnt a person...you have yet to prove to me otherwise, and so it wont help convince me at all. and then if you claim that its not a citizen of the US and therefore the constitution doesnt pertain to it, then why havent i've heard about any CC'ers protesting against the laws that make the murder of a pregnant woman count as two murders? it doesnt matter if you dont agree with it, they counted the baby/fetus as a citizen then, what makes an abortion any different? oh and even if you prove its not a citizen, it doesnt make killing it ok... you cant kill illegal aliens for recreation can you?</p>