 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Negative Overload
Big Guppy
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 49
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | In practice, nobody aborts fetuses for these reasons. |
I know, but I was mostly saying that to make a point that even if they wanted to abort for that reason it wouldn't be feasible.
| Quote: | Naw Neg. I know Lone better than that!
Can you not see that she hates abortion? She gets upset, just like I do! |
Hence my giving her the benefit of the doubt.
It's pretty obvious she hates it, but that doesn't excuse making statements that could be misconstrued as easily as the one in question. That's all. I certainly don't think she's one of the 'lifers who actually DO compare 'choicers to Nazis. But one should be careful with their words, especially online, yes?
---------------------
Take it easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/23/CMGM3JLFPN1.DTL
Is There an Ethical Quandary?
There is nothing new about the desire to choose the sex of a child. Parents have tried to do it for hundreds of years. But techniques that work with some degree of success have been available only for the past three decades, with the newest, PGD, only for the past few years. With new technology has come an ethical dilemma. Is gender selection a logical component of reproductive freedom or does it perpetuate discrimination, particularly in countries or cultural communities where there is deep-rooted bias against women? Some medical ethicists argue that it's one more piece of evidence that medicine is a commodity to be purchased by those who can.
"Being in the obstetrics-gynecology field, I see a fair number of couples terminating pregnancies of the 'undesired sex' after doing ultrasounds and amniocentesis," Nayak wrote. "There would be fewer couples doing that if these same couples used the Ericsson method of sex selection."
I'm sorry..I'm having trouble posting overload..I'm not ignoring you...I will reply as often as I'm able.
Peace
lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mother nature has finely tuned the male to female ratio in human beings. If we start messing with that ratio, then it will hurt the overall population's reproductive rates.
Countries which hate women may use abortions and murder and other means to make sure they have more sons, but ultimately this will harm their reproductive rates. Since these countries and cultures are evil, that's a definite silver lining to the whole story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WhyWomenChooseAbortion
| Quote: | | Gender selection abortion is the act of aborting a fetus, usually female, on the grounds of its gender/sex. A United Nations research study has concluded that there are over 200 million more males than females, because of sex selection abortions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/WhyWomenChooseAbortion.html
| Quote: | | Gender selection abortion is the act of aborting a fetus, usually female, on the grounds of its gender/sex. A United Nations research study has concluded that there are over 200 million more males than females, because of sex selection abortions. |
|
You're not seeing the silver lining here: Having a skewed gender ratio will reduce the reproductive rate, and with the world being totally overpopulated as it is, that's definitely a good thing...
As for that list of why women choose abortion that you gave, most of those reasons are legitimate arguments!
It also says that the claim that abortions are safer than giving birth is a myth. This is a bold-faced lie. It is not a myth; it is totally true. Abortions are considerably safer than giving birth.
For example, check out these studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=639966&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8178896&dopt=Abstract
Here are some relevant facts:
| Quote: | | Childbirth-related mortality figures for the same period were much higher in each of the component groups. Women in the age group 20-24 had a 2.3 times greater mortality risk in childbirth than in abortion and women over 35 had an 8.1 times greater risk. |
This study was done back in the early 70s after abortions had just been legalized and doctors weren't very experienced or good at performing them. Even then, abortions were considerably safer than giving birth.
Since then, doctors have improved their techniques. The second study is from 2006:
| Quote: | | Ectopic pregnancy is substantially more dangerous (38 deaths/100,000 events) than either childbirth (nine) or legal abortion (less than one). |
Ectopic pregnancies aside (they are pretty rare), childbirth is at least nine times more dangerous than abortion.
In other words, if a woman gets pregnant and wants to figure out what to do, having the baby and then giving it up for adoption is a really bad choice when compared with abortion. First of all, she won't have to go through the hardships of pregnancy, and her life won't be disrupted. But more importantly, it's MUCH safer.
So don't listen to the anti-abortionists who say that childbirth is safer than abortion; they are lying through their teeth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
well if it's a matter of overpopulation, why not just kill two birds with one stone?
(sarcasm)...
The bottom line for me P,
I don't agree with it, I don't believe in it, therefore I would not be a participant in it.
Other people have to live with their decisions and I have to live with mine.
I happy with the one I made.. 
Hugs
Lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm probably more on Lone's side of this argument...
I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion...however, that last part (to me) is a personal decision...the former part is what I think public policy should be....to me, it ties to a larger issue of individual freedom and self-determination...
It's difficult because it's such an emotionally laden issue...I actually support a date determination (e.g, Abortion is a woman's choice up to XX weeks, barring special circumstances)...the consequences of that decision remain the individual's burden to bear...
I get pretty fed up with the Nanny state approach that wants to order people not to drink, not to smoke, not to eat fast food etc....it's the role of government to educate the public on the dangers...but it's the individuals choice whether to accept the risks...and suffer the consequences....
Just my 10 pennies  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | well if it's a matter of overpopulation, why not just kill two birds with one stone?
(sarcasm)...
|
Because much like you, I believe that murder is wrong. Furthermore, it's unnecessary. Population control can be achieved by controlling birth rate.
| lone-traveler wrote: |
The bottom line for me P,
I don't agree with it, I don't believe in it, therefore I would not be a participant in it.
|
And nobody is saying that you have to be! You can make whichever choices you want; that's the whole point of 'freedom'. Just don't try to take any freedoms away from other people!
| lone-traveler wrote: |
Other people have to live with their decisions and I have to live with mine.
I happy with the one I made..
|
That's good! I happy for you to make whichever decisions you want with respect to your own body and life. I completely and utterly support your rights! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
that's a good point pondering...
Surgeon General's Warning:
Smoking causes....xyz...
yet it's still legal and up to the individual whether they choose to heed the warnings or not.
But in NY if you want to eat fast food with fatty trans fat..forget it, it's been banned...So then what happens?
The price of fastfood goes up, they make a bigger profit.
so that 99 cent hamburger just jumped to $2. it may be healthier to eat but you'll go broke a lot faster..LOL
who needs a diet when your to poor to buy food?
So we go and cry to Joseph..(government) give us bread... and we become slaves to the system.
Then they can tell you what color you should dye your hair and paint your nails...
America land of the free.....where?
grumpin today..LOL
lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | I'm probably more on Lone's side of this argument...
I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion...however, that last part (to me) is a personal decision...the former part is what I think public policy should be....to me, it ties to a larger issue of individual freedom and self-determination...
It's difficult because it's such an emotionally laden issue...I actually support a date determination (e.g, Abortion is a woman's choice up to XX weeks, barring special circumstances)...the consequences of that decision remain the individual's burden to bear...
|
As long as XX is determined by reasoning along the lines of, "If labor were induced right now and the baby has a healthy birth weight and would probably survive on its own outside the mother's body, then abortion is illegal.", then I would agree with you.
But if XX is anything short of that, then I would be opposed.
| Pondering wrote: |
I get pretty fed up with the Nanny state approach that wants to order people not to drink, not to smoke, not to eat fast food etc....it's the role of government to educate the public on the dangers...but it's the individuals choice whether to accept the risks...and suffer the consequences....
Just my 10 pennies |
I completely agree. Unfortunately, what we've got right now is little or no education going on, so the government is failing in its primary role.
Of course, there are caveats. For instance, people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but that right should not extend to smoking around other people who don't want to be exposed to it.
Then there's the whole issue of addiction. People should be allowed to drink, but if they have a drinking problem, then the state isn't really doing anyone any favors by just saying, "We educated you, and now it's your choice to destroy your liver as well as the lives of the people around you." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
As long as XX is determined by reasoning along the lines of, "If labor were induced right now and the baby has a healthy birth weight and would probably survive on its own outside the mother's body, then abortion is illegal.", then I would agree with you. |
I do...I expect that would be around 24-29 weeks right now...as our technology improves, that may need to be reviewed...but yes, the principle would be "survive on its own"....
| P1234567890 wrote: |
For instance, people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but that right should not extend to smoking around other people who don't want to be exposed to it. |
See, I'd prefer to let the market work that out than "ban" things....My wife and I no longer smoke...money and health concerns. We never liked to eat in restaurants where people smoked around us...so, under this idea, it would one of the considerations I would take, just like the menu and the decor, as to whether I'd go to Restuarant X over Restuarant Y...a "free" market really does work....couple that with real, honest, education and an enlightened society will generally do "the right thing"
The second point, addiction and health costs, well, I'm a little harsher there. I'm really not in favor of the government picking up the tab on folks who basically have self-inflicted wounds...If you are poor, don't smoke, and get lung cancer, I'm fine with the gov't "helping you out"...but if you smoke, get lung cancer, well, you sorta asked for it and that's your burden to bear...It's cold, but it's honest and "fair"
Again, I want to stress that equally push Liberty with the concept of PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY...we've pretty much lost site of that second part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
I do...I expect that would be around 24-29 weeks right now...as our technology improves, that may need to be reviewed...but yes, the principle would be "survive on its own"....
|
I argue that it's a little more complicated than just surviving outside of the mother's body. Our technology is constantly getting better and better, and premature babies are surviving at younger and younger ages all the time.
Unfortunately, the issue is now coming up of whether or not we want to save some of these babies, even if we can. The reason for this issue is that extremely premature babies, although they can be saved, have all sorts of MAJOR health problems later in life. For example, their lungs haven't developed properly, and won't develop properly in an incubator, so they tend to have major respiratory problems.
So I think the litmus test for outlawing abortion should be *healthy* survivability outside of the mother's body.
| Pondering wrote: |
| P1234567890 wrote: |
For instance, people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but that right should not extend to smoking around other people who don't want to be exposed to it. |
See, I'd prefer to let the market work that out than "ban" things....My wife and I no longer smoke...money and health concerns. We never liked to eat in restaurants where people smoked around us...so, under this idea, it would one of the considerations I would take, just like the menu and the decor, as to whether I'd go to Restuarant X over Restuarant Y...a "free" market really does work....couple that with real, honest, education and an enlightened society will generally do "the right thing"
|
Actually, the market is pretty bad at solving these kinds of problems. For example, a couple of years ago they banned smoking in pretty much every public building in all of Toronto. All of the bar and club owners were freaking out, saying that the smoking ban was going to put them out of business because the drinking and partying crowd and the smoking crowd have a huge overlap.
At the time, it seemed plausible that they would be right, but as it turns out, they were totally wrong. The smokers kept going out, AND non-smokers started showing up as well, and business actually INCREASED!
So the ban helped everyone. This would not have been possible if it were just left up to the market. If some guy with a bar suddenly banned smoking, but nobody else did, then the result would be that the smokers would leave his bar and go someplace else. Sure, he'd get a few non-smokers showing up now, but it wouldn't nearly compensate for the loss. The only way to make it work is to ban it universally, so the smokers don't displace.
So capitalism definitely is not the solution to this problem.
| Pondering wrote: |
The second point, addiction and health costs, well, I'm a little harsher there. I'm really not in favor of the government picking up the tab on folks who basically have self-inflicted wounds...If you are poor, don't smoke, and get lung cancer, I'm fine with the gov't "helping you out"...but if you smoke, get lung cancer, well, you sorta asked for it and that's your burden to bear...It's cold, but it's honest and "fair"
Again, I want to stress that equally push Liberty with the concept of PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY...we've pretty much lost site of that second part. |
Yeah, this is a tough one, and it totally depends on context. For example, in the U.S. where you have privatized health care, people who ride motorcycles (or bikes, for that matter), should have the right to NOT wear helmets (and pay higher premiums for it).
In Canada, it's totally different, because we have socialized health care. I should have a say in whether or not the dude down the street wears a helmet, because I'm going to have to help pay for it when he brains himself and needs to be in a hospital bed for the next 50 years with round-the-clock nursing.
In other words, freedom depends on the circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
not to take us too far off point, but we actually have a mix of privatized and socialized health care...
Those that are old or below the poverty line recieve Medicare or Medicaid....it's not as frilly or as good a privatized care, but it is there...
even the "uninsured" are actually cared for...in our Emergency rooms 
Therefore, all tax payers help support this and those that have private insurance pay a higher premium in part as a hidden tax for the "uninsured"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
