markodaly wrote: » Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden. If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty. One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility. We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So your actual argument is against contraception. Welcome to 1972.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty. One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility. We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world. The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about. And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Is it? What if a parent knows they can't support a child, either emotionally, financially, or both? What if someone just doesn't want kids? Don't those people have a right to a happy life as well? If not, do we ban birth control as well? That's also eliminating a potential chance at life, albeit at an earlier stage. Why draw the line? Again, if my own partner were considering an abortion, I'd really prefer if they didn't go ahead with it. But it's not up to me to make that decision, not alone at least, and it's most certainly not up to me to make that decision for anyone I don't even know.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Funny how defensive people who don't care about the catholic church get when legitimate criticisms of the church are brought up.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » What are people blaming the church for that isn't the church's fault here? I'm sure people will blame whoever is to blame. Just like they're doing now.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I don't entirely disagree with you, to be fair. I just think we should save people the stress of going to England to do something that's stressful enough for them to begin with. I'd honestly prefer if abortion was once used in extreme circumstances as well, i just don't feel it's my place to judge if someone wants one for other reasons.
markodaly wrote: » Some research says 12 weeks, some say as early as 8, some say at 20 weeks. The fact remains a baby in the womb can feel pain.
Sweetemotion wrote: » That source is very weak.
But many doctors reject those claims, saying a fetus’s brain and nervous system are not developed at 20 weeks to feel pain. They cite a wide-ranging 2005 study that found a fetus was unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of a pregnancy, or about 27 weeks. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in 2013 that no subsequent research had contradicted that study.
These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation.
the research of Dr. Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. His work, which has been the go-to resource for anti-abortion groups,
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » But if they're going to do it anyway, surely they should be able to get medical care in their own country?
kylith wrote: » You appear to have misunderstood the research. .
. For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.
markodaly wrote: » Nope, that article is taking one doctors word on it, seems he as no research published on the matter and is just pushing an agenda. Meanwhile, peer reviewed research, states that babies can feel pain.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900087/
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » What if the parent(s) can't afford to look after a child? Or aren't mentally/emotionally in a position to do so? I realise adoption is an option, but I think it's unnecessarily cruel to the mother to force her to go through the pregnancy only to have to give it up at the end of it. You're acting as if people choosing to have an abortion are doing so on a whim, but I'm sure for most people who do it's a difficult, often heart wrenching choice. Why does the unborn get consideration over everyone else involved here? I know this can seem like a cold hearted argument, but can you not see how the pro-life position can seem cold in it's own way? The feelings of the parents don't matter at all to some people,it seems. I think there's a middle ground between medical emergencies and "abortion on demand" as you put it. I also think most people seeking abortions fall somewhere in that middle ground. Maybe I'm giving the average person too much credit, but that's genuinely how I see it.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Blame the Catholic Church and then make it a class issue about poor people.
markodaly wrote: » Have we? Abortion makes people richer? Why then are the same poor class of people having abortions. African Americans have for decades have always had higher abortion rates, and most crucially still do to this day. If they have been having more abortions why are they still poorer than the rest of American society? Does not compute. Poor poor shoddy argument. Also you know you just admitted that abortion is another piece of contraceptive.
markodaly wrote: » Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.
end of the road wrote: » i'm afraid that can't happen as the unborn life has a right to live and a right to be protected from harm.
Sweetemotion wrote: » Now we get to it. You don't want poor people. And a catholic bash :rolleyes:
Edward M wrote: » The I'm right you're wrong attitude is always too prevalent in these type of debates.
end of the road wrote: » however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.
markodaly wrote: » Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.
markodaly wrote: » kylith wrote: » Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant. A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected. Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.
kylith wrote: » Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant. A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Not for long.
splinter65 wrote: » Dropped by, saw this, poster literally chomping at the bit to get the abortion machine cranked up, mouth watering, heart thumping with anticipation. Words fail me.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I think we need a middle ground in this debate, not an all out ban on abortion but not all out repeal either. Both sides need to be heard.
Nicolas Cage wrote: » That's going to be a bit hard to do when one side constantly throws tantrums and walks out of meetings.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation. With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation. With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet. Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.
