Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A Civil Abortion Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    Here's another thought: Some research, and thus the common perception on the other side, indicates that women who are denied an abortion face economic insecurity. One such study (I have not idea if it is good or not, but lets grant its finding for the sake of argument) finds that women who do not have access to abortion faces up to four years of economic insecurity following the birth of a child. Here is the abstract. I have not read the study.

    Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States

    Objectives. To determine the socioeconomic consequences of receipt versus denial of abortion.

    Methods. Women who presented for abortion just before or after the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States between 2008 and 2010 were recruited and followed for 5 years via semiannual telephone interviews. Using mixed effects models, we evaluated socioeconomic outcomes for 813 women by receipt or denial of abortion care.

    Results. In analyses that adjusted for the few baseline differences, women denied abortions who gave birth had higher odds of poverty 6 months after denial (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.77; P < .001) than did women who received abortions; women denied abortions were also more likely to be in poverty for 4 years after denial of abortion. Six months after denial of abortion, women were less likely to be employed full time (AOR = 0.37; P = .001) and were more likely to receive public assistance (AOR = 6.26; P < .001) than were women who obtained abortions, differences that remained significant for 4 years.

    Conclusions. Women denied an abortion were more likely than were women who received an abortion to experience economic hardship and insecurity lasting years. Laws that restrict access to abortion may result in worsened economic outcomes for women.


    So are what ways can we decouple pregnancy and economic insecurity in the United States? It might be that we can save lives if we fight against the "penalty" of pregnancy?
    This is a tricky one. The challenge is to decouple them without triggering the law of unintended consequences. Structured incorrectly, you could actually trigger a situation where people are intentionally getting pregnant to get the security that follows - basically a full-on cobra-effect.

    Addressing poverty in general would be important...but that is a whole other can of worms.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      On that one I have no idea. As with individuals, I suspect it would be all over the map, for all media outlets.
      I'll deal with this one since it's probably the most critical for exposure. The MSM has been pretty consistently loyal to the pro-choice position.

      Any attempt at moderation would be challenged by Planned Parenthood, and I believe the MSM would fall right in line.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I wonder what other social issues you could apply this to? If we went back in time before the 1960s...

        1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on whether or not blacks are equal.
        2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on black equality for the last 50 years.
        3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years.

        Therefore, we should refrain from opposing racism and segregation and work towards short-lived band-aid "compromises" that don't actually address the problem.


        Or if we go back further...

        1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on whether or not women should have the right to vote.
        2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on women's suffrage for the last 50 years.
        3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years.

        Therefore, we should refrain from opposing denying women the right to vote and work towards short-lived band-aid "compromises" that don't actually address the problem.
        I'm afraid you're not really following the case being made. I have never said that opposing abortion is to stop. If these statements are true:

        1) The current debate/war is rooted in a disagreement on when a human person begins.
        2) There has been essentially zero progress to aligning the opposing views on when a human person begins for the last 50 years.
        3) There is no basis for believing those views will be aligned in the next 50 years

        Then the claim I am making is that "opposing abortion by trying to convince the other side that a human person begins at conception is pointless and fruitless." That is an obvious follow-on. It doesn't mean you stop opposing abortions.

        So in your examples above, if the first three points were true (and I am not convinced they are), the logical conclusion would not be "stop fighting racism" - it would be "fighting racism by trying to convince people that everyone is equal is not going to work."

        Note that this doesn't mean you stop believing everyone is equal. It also doesn't mean that you seek to make that reality happen eventually. It means that an in-your-face argument to prove it to people is simply going to be destined to fail, and other approaches should be considered.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Remember, CP, that the goal is to find solutions that will be embraced by BOTH sides...
          In the interest of civility, this "Remember, CP...." implies that I actually forgot something. It's nut useful.

          Ahh...NOW you're getting it!
          Again with what could be considered somewhat snarky.

          What is causing the holes and how can we address it is indeed the question that should be asked. So let's just say, for the sake of argument, the holes are being caused by merpeople who believe, with every fiber of their being, that drilling holes in wooden hulls is the best way to keep ships healthy and extend their lives. For weeks now, as your people keep bailing as fast and hard as they can, you've argued with them, explained the situation, but to no avail. They are convinced they are right, and you are convinced what they are doing is damaging and threatens the lives of everyone on board.

          Would you consider it to be a wise choice to continue arguing with them, or would you look for other solutions?
          With all due respect, I think your 'analogy' is getting weaker and weaker. If I saw somebody drilling holes in my boat, I'd give them fair warning, then I'd smack the fire out of them with my oar. I don't think that's really what you want.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So in your examples above, if the first three points were true (and I am not convinced they are), the logical conclusion would not be "stop fighting racism" - it would be "fighting racism by trying to convince people that everyone is equal is not going to work."

            It means that an in-your-face argument to prove it to people is simply going to be destined to fail, and other approaches should be considered.
            So, what was the trigger to ignite the Civil Rights Movement? By polite discussions, analogies and rhetoric? Or by civil disobedience and action.

            civil disobedience.jpg

            (Am I allowed to post pictures?)
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              This just isn't true. Like RvW, the current debate isn't when "life begins", it's when that life becomes a "person". You need to modify your argument to reflect that.
              And for good reason. As enunciated in the RvW ruling: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

              The best we can hope for is, as determined in RvW, when a fetus becomes a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law and subject to the laws and rights of a “person”.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                How common is this actually, out of curiosity? When I was in school, they only devoted one day to it, and the teacher basically skipped over it, said that only abstinence was effective, and when somebody asked about birth control, he said he couldn't talk about it.
                Likely more common than you think. I doubt they'd be overtly pro abortion, but likely it'll come up as a viable and helpful alternative. I'm older than you, but in my own experience in a poor, inter-cultural city school on the East Coast our health ed teacher spent at least a few weeks on sex education, including at least a week or more on birth control...in very graphic terms too. This was 6th or 7th grade, and she was telling graphic stories about having a friend help with a stuck diaphragm to 12/13 year olds. All pretty standard for your average kinda rowdy and progressive New England school system. At least, it was in the 80s when I was there. Switching to the corn belt Midwest for high school, my later teachers would probably have died with embarrassment before talking about sex education in such graphic terms. So it's really pretty regional I think.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  But it will save lives in the short term and possibly modify reckless behaviors that lead to the problem.
                  That is the heart of the question: do we think short term only, or do we deal with the short term AND the long term.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  But a growing number are pro-life.

                  Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/02/this_is_the_pro-life_generation_136947.html

                  A recent Gallup poll found that “young adults were slightly more likely than all other age groups, including seniors, to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.” Gallup also said Americans ages 18-29 were “trending more anti-abortion.”

                  A Marist poll released earlier this year found that among respondents ages 18-29, 47 percent said that abortion was more likely to do harm to a woman’s life than good, while just 39 percent said abortion was more likely to improve a woman’s life.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  I am not sure where those numbers come from. This is a 2018 Gallup poll that shows just the opposite.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  And a massive celebration for those increasing number of young people who support overturning the "right".
                  If the demographics I cite are correct - it will be a short-term celebration.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  But pro-life liberals are also increasing. This isn't strictly a liberal/conservative issue.
                  Again - I cannot explain two opposing sets of numbers from the same source.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter declined to overrule Roe v. Wade, claiming that such a move would undermine the public legitimacy of the Court by making it seem to bend to public pressure.
                  I'm curious - you think this is likely to happen again?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Unfortunately, that's the only way to get things challenged in court.
                  And my point, BTC, is that a continued legal battle is not going to change this.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  And the course of their offspring

                  And they are increasingly pro-life.
                  Depending on which numbers you believe.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  It's gone on throughout the history of man.
                  I'm not sure this is true. While there have been isolated pockets of debate throughout history, as there have been about guns, the issue being as broad-based as it is now is a relatively new thing - primarily beginning in the last century. For much of human history, a human person was considered to have started when the fetus "quickened." Before then, abortion was not widely thought ill of, even in many (most?) religions? Even many Catholic church fathers tended to see abortion after "ensoulment" and abortion before "ensoulment" as two different things, linking "ensoulment" to quickening.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No. I think that scientifically, that question is self-explanatory, but until science is the deciding factor, and not arbitrary philosophical ideas, we will not make any headway without forcing the issue to the courts again.
                  Then history tells us that that we will likely not see a resolution - and the battle will rage on.

                  And I find your use of "arbitrary philosophical ideas" interesting, and a bit inconsistent. Theology is a branch of philosophy. So is metaphysics. In the past, you have leaned heavily on philosophy/theology to make points about your beliefs in god. The study of man is, in part, a philosophical course. The statement "science is the field of study to determine when a human person begins to exist" is itself a philosophical statement. But the issue is not what discipline to use to determine when a human person begins - it is to observe that basing action on a question to resolve that issue is an exercise in futility.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-17-2019, 06:27 AM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I quickly scanned the thread and have two observations. First, I am gratified that the tone is being kept civil. Second, I am a bit disappointed that the conversation still wants to slip towards debating the issue of abortion, rather than looking at the meta issue of what solutions that would be acceptable by both side have the greatest chance, if implemented, of significantly slowing abortions? My base argument is that a continued war of words, press, and law, on "when does a human person begin" is futile and needs to be set aside in favor of other, more practical solutions.

                    I also am up to my ears in work today, so I'll be responding to one post at a time when I take a break from course development. Wish I could do more. It's an important/interesting discussion.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I quickly scanned the thread and have two observations. First, I am gratified that the tone is being kept civil. Second, I am a bit disappointed that the conversation still wants to slip towards debating the issue of abortion, rather than looking at the meta issue of what solutions that would be acceptable by both side have the greatest chance, if implemented, of significantly slowing abortions? My base argument is that a continued war of words, press, and law, on "when does a human person begin" is futile and needs to be set aside in favor of other, more practical solutions.
                      Some of us have already suggested that it's not really about "when does a human life begin":

                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      I don’t think that’s where the problem is. My feeling is that the debatable issues are around value and who is allowed to determine value. A lot of contradictory nonsense is spoken about the value of human lives.
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      So, I would disagree that the actual debate is over "when a human person begins", but whether one person has the constitutional right to terminate the life of another person. The "when a human person begins" is an attempt to justify that a person has the constitutional right to terminate the life of another person.
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      If it's truly about "when a human person begins", then there should be some point in the development of the unborn baby at which the "pro choice" crowd would concede - "yeah, THAT's going too far".

                      From my perspective, the point has never been about "when a person begins" - that's just a tool in demonstrating that, to the "pro choice" side, it doesn't really matter. Planned Parenthood even fights limitations on abortion up to 21 weeks.

                      I also am up to my ears in work today, so I'll be responding to one post at a time when I take a break from course development. Wish I could do more. It's an important/interesting discussion.
                      I think the pro-choice side has really exacerbated the problem by fighting for late term abortions. The longer the baby develops in the womb, the harder it is to argue it's not a person. That's not the real problem. The real problem is "does one person have the constitutional right to end the life of another person".

                      I think even your modified premise is invalid.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I suggest that is an example of returning to the same mantras and topics that have been the basis for the ongoing abortion war for the last 50 years. If we're going to make progress, we need to set aside differences (that doesn't mean they stop being differences) and look for common ground.
                        Access to proper medical care, which brings down the rate of unintended pregnancies, should be common ground. Instead the anti-abortion crowd is trying to destroy the very cause of these unintended pregnancy rate decreases, such as access to family planning education and contraception. They believe that a fertilized egg, a fetus, is a person simply because it is human derived. It's like saying that an egg is a chicken, which it isn't. But, if they believe a fetus is a person, then they should be in agreement with the other side in their attempts to bring down the rate of of unintended pregnancies in the first place. That, at least should be common ground, and a common goal.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Access to proper medical care, which brings down the rate of unintended pregnancies, should be common ground.
                          Absolutely! And there are thousands of such clinics across the country not named "Planned Parenthood".

                          Instead the anti-abortion crowd
                          Carpe has requested we remain civil. We are not the "anti-abortion crowd", we are pro-life.

                          is trying to destroy the very cause of these unintended pregnancy rate decreases, such as access to family planning education and contraception.
                          This is a prejudicial statement that is simply not true.

                          They believe that a fertilized egg, a fetus,
                          A fertilized egg is not a fetus. The "fetus" stage comes about 8 weeks in.

                          is a person simply because it is human derived.
                          This would be a gross oversimplification. "It" has its own unique DNA, and is demonstrably human life.

                          It's like saying that an egg is a chicken, which it isn't.
                          Nobody is saying that an egg is a chicken. It's interesting, though, since you brought up "eggs", as the same people who are "pro-choice" generally support the federal law that prohibits the destruction of eagle eggs, even though the egg is not an eagle.

                          But, if they believe a fetus is a person, then they should be in agreement with the other side in their attempts to bring down the rate of of unintended pregnancies in the first place. That, at least should be common ground, and a common goal.
                          The most reliable way to bring down the rate of unintended pregnancies is abstinence. That only failed once in history, and that turned out OK. I'm all for bringing down the rate of unintended pregnancies, which is part of the work of the women's clinic I support - just like thousands of such clinics across the country that are not associated in any way with Planned Parenthood.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            ...They believe that a fertilized egg, a fetus, is a person...
                            Jim, I thought I would be helpful and share some useful information concerning the development of the baby. Please note that the following article is from the world renown Cleveland Clinic.

                            Fetal Development: Stages of Growth

                            I thought it was interesting that, even in the "Primer on Conception" section, it says (bolding mine)

                            "At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex."


                            The baby gets its very own unique DNA - even if it's an identical twin! I thought that was amazing.

                            In that same article, it explains

                            Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed. Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.


                            If I can be of further assistance, don't hesitate to ask.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Some of us have already suggested that it's not really about "when does a human life begin":






                              I think the pro-choice side has really exacerbated the problem by fighting for late term abortions. The longer the baby develops in the womb, the harder it is to argue it's not a person. That's not the real problem. The real problem is "does one person have the constitutional right to end the life of another person".

                              I think even your modified premise is invalid.
                              To bring the discussion to if is is ok for one person to kill another person, you must first establish they are both persons, which takes you back to the element carpe is leaving on the table as unresolvable - 50 years of debate has been unable to find common ground on that question as it relates to a fetus.



                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                To bring the discussion to if is is ok for one person to kill another person, you must first establish they are both persons, which takes you back to the element carpe is leaving on the table as unresolvable - 50 years of debate has been unable to find common ground on that question as it rekates to a fetus.



                                Jim
                                The argument that an unborn baby is not a person is equivalent to the argument that enslaved blacks are only three fifths of a person, and for the same reason. We eventually got past that.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X