 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
that's a fallacious comparison, and we both know it. |
I disagree.
I consider the right to abortion to be inherently a good thing (actually, I consider contraception+abortion to be the greatest things that come from the 20th century). Just like I consider medicine to be inherently a good thing.
These good things have their flaws, the side effects. Like with modern medicine, abortion has its side effects. Like with modern medicine, the side effects of abortion do not go completely against the abortion's mission (you can still have children after an abortion, even though you have higher odds of encountering problems). That's different from 19th century medicine, which often killed instead of curing.
Had this study been about the anti-AIDS medication, nobody would have claimed the medication should be banned. Instead, the comments would have been akin to "the scientists ought to look at this problem, and try to solve it". That's because nobody here has a philosophical opposition to anti-AIDS medication. And that's because the side effect is not bad enough that it warrants a ban.
When Shi says this study is a reason to ban abortion, it's because he already wants abortion banned. It's a philosophical opposition, not a medical one. Even if a study had shown that abortion made healthier future babies, Shi wouldn't have changed his opinion. Because his opinion has nothing to do with medical concerns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
Spiff, I'm glad there's at least one around who understands my parallelisms. This be stupid board.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no, but like smoking it should at least be discouraged
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Now, that's a good reason to develop an abortion method that deals with such problems, so that abortion can become safer.
Do you people regularily call for banning useful medical procedures when side-effects are discovered, or do you call for more research in the area? |
Medications have been forced off the shelves and surgical procedures banned for less.
Abortions in the US are legal, so they're generally done in established medical facilities with the best technology currently available. The techniques used to carry out an abortion of course vary according to how old the baby is.
Anyway, this is old news to the medical community. It's been known for better than twenty years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
if it makes it more likely that future births are at risk, than it is an health issue
and good health should be encouraged by the state, as the state is responsible for paying for bad health..
alos, currently we are killing living humans, which is bloody murder (abortions after the point where brainwaves are detected (hence an independent being) are murder, and should be agreed to by open minded secular people who aren't monsters)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why? |
There's really excellent evidence that second hand cigarette smoke significantly harms the people around a smoker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
Abortion is definitely not one of the best outcomes of the 20th century. not noly because it's been around before that. it just isn't that great. gives an answer to a problem WE never had.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I disagree.
I consider the right to abortion to be inherently a good thing (actually, I consider contraception+abortion to be the greatest things that come from the 20th century). Just like I consider medicine to be inherently a good thing.
These good things have their flaws, the side effects. Like with modern medicine, abortion has its side effects. Like with modern medicine, the side effects of abortion do not go completely against the abortion's mission (you can still have children after an abortion, even though you have higher odds of encountering problems). That's different from 19th century medicine, which often killed instead of curing.
Had this study been about the anti-AIDS medication, nobody would have claimed the medication should be banned. Instead, the comments would have been akin to "the scientists ought to look at this problem, and try to solve it". That's because nobody here has a philosophical opposition to anti-AIDS medication. And that's because the side effect is not bad enough that it warrants a ban.
When Shi says this study is a reason to ban abortion, it's because he already wants abortion banned. It's a philosophical opposition, not a medical one. Even if a study had shown that abortion made healthier future babies, Shi wouldn't have changed his opinion. Because his opinion has nothing to do with medical concerns. |
That's not what I was talking about, at all. If one says that...
ahh **** it, I am too tired for this ****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
Unwanted pregnancies can be cured by contraception ie the pill.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I thought that evidence had been dismissed. Many conservatives routinely bring it up as "junk" science. I don't know that much about the issue. |
Nope. Remember conservatives went wildly ecstatic over Dr. Kleck's survey study of defensive gun use. That's the one that came to the startling conclusion that the US has a stunning 300,000 casualty rate/year from DGU. No one bothered to question the glaring faults in the study.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
Abortion doesn't kill people. People kill people... |
...with abortions. 
WRT the original topic, I agree with part of Spiffor's point; it's dishonest to pretend we oppose abortion for risks to later babies. Most pro-lifers despise the procedure because it kills the one that's there already. We don't need to lower ourselves to the level of, say, the RCC, who spread junk statistics about condom failure rates because they oppose condoms on religious grounds. That's kind of like opposing the Spanish Inquisition on the grounds that "every Jew or Muslim we burn at the stake causes air pollution." From our POV it's not super-relevant. It's bad, yes, but we need to bring people around to our way of seeing things instead of frightening them with coincidental problems to save ourselves the effort of a real debate.
WRT Laz's obnoxious line about the "pwecious fetus," that strawman can be brushed aside if you realize that the child is heavily dependent on its parents even after birth. The only real change is in its physical location. That, and you aren't allowed to murder children out of the womb. Anyway, if you fail to give your child quite enough affection or give it a less-than-spectacular diet or something, you'll generally be considered a crappy parent but won't be charged with anything unless the problem gets bad. The rule of common sense can still apply here. Let's just say you can't deliberately kill the kid, for starters, and from there we can argue against reckless endangerment in varying degrees. Anything is better than what we have now. I don't think anyone on this board believes there's a perfect tidy answer to all our problems. If there is such a person, you have my permission to ignore him.
And, lastly, I have never understood how abortion "solves" the problem of unwanted pregnancies. We used to hush up about them, now we get rid of them entirely to avoid the slightest risk of embarrassment. Pregnancy is still stigmatized and shameful under certain circumstances, and abortion only perpetuates that. Rape and incest still happen, condoms still break, some people are still ignorant about proper family planning, but instead of facing those problems we elect to hide their most obvious physical consequences. If anything, that allows the real problems to continue.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2005 18:15
|