Abortion?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hell, how do you know what someone was shooting at?

Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.

Marshall's findings have been somewhat controversial. Faced with scholarly concern about a researcher's methodology and conclusions, the scientific method involves replicating the research. In Marshall's case, every available, parallel, scholarly study validates his basic findings. Ardant du Picq's surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations on ancient battles, Keegan and Holmes' numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history, Richard Holmes' assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War, Paddy Griffith's data on the extraordinarily low killing rate among Napoleonic and American Civil War regiments, the British Army's laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI's studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations all confirm Marshall's fundamental conclusion that man is not, by nature, a killer.

[Elok]

Snuggles, context is key. Pro-choice groups are in effect close enough to "pro-abortion" in this particular case because we're talking about societal elements condoning abortion, giving the impression that it's okay. Now, the jab against Planned Parenthood was unsubstantiated and, I admit, out of line--but I'm arguing with freaking Kid here, cut me some slack.

Originally posted by Kidicious

You are comparing pro-choice people to Nazi's and other hate groups. Pro-choice groups do not try to get people to have abortions. They have nothing personal against fetuses. Some actually like fetuses and others have no feelings towards them at all. That is not at all the same as society conditioning individuals to commit genocide.

YOU brought up the Nazis. I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm not even talking about Hutus and Tutsis. All I'm talking about is a general effect of societal approval on the perception of a given act. No Nuremberg rallies, no Triumph of Will. Keep your Nazis to yourself.

All of those animals still have resistance to killing their own kind. For example male lions do not fight to the death usually. What they do is try to intimidate their opponent. This is the exact same thing that humans try to do.

Do you even remember the last time you knew what you were talking about?

No. Patty is just being ridiculous. In fact, I've already started to ignore most of what he's saying. If you want to win this debate you will have to pick it up yourself.

You're ignoring most of what he's saying, huh? That's pretty much SOP for when you argue, isn't it? I'm out of here unless Snuggles or someone else with his/her head on straight feels like arguing a point.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Snuggles, context is key. Pro-choice groups are in effect close enough to "pro-abortion" in this particular case because we're talking about societal elements condoning abortion, giving the impression that it's okay. Now, the jab against Planned Parenthood was unsubstantiated and, I admit, out of line--but I'm arguing with freaking Kid here, cut me some slack.

Do you have anything besides the usual, "I'm arguing with Kid, so I'm automatically right BS." Here's two cents for that. That's what it's worth.

All I'm talking about is a general effect of societal approval on the perception of a given act.

Society doesn't approve of abortion. Some of society believes that it should be legal. Most people prefer however for no one to ever have an abortion.

At any rate, that is not what is required to create people who are willing and able to kill people. What is required is something like Nazi germany.

Now either you show how Planned Parenthood is like Nazi's, and go the Rush route, or you have nothing. Nadda. Zip.

You're ignoring most of what he's saying, huh? That's pretty much SOP for when you argue, isn't it? I'm out of here unless Snuggles or someone else with his/her head on straight feels like arguing a point.

You've never argued with him have you? I forgot how right wing you are. Even moderates know what it's like to argue with Patty.

[Ben Kenobi]

Those aren't the only solutions. Take a loss now and hold for better times (i.e., keep the child and raise it); take a loss and sell it as soon as it's feasible (i.e., keep the child and give it up for adoption); take a loss but get out of the market to prevent any further losses (i.e., terminate the pregnancy).

I agree, all I am arguing is that on average, abortion is the worst decision you can make. You lose the money now, with no hope of recouping anything in the future.

There may be some very valid reasons for people to seek abortion unrelated to health issues.

What reasons? Financially, it's a terrible decision. It's shortsighted, and in the majority of the cases you'd be better off raising your child and waiting to see how things turn out.

I didn't say that they didn't. I simply said that for the number of people that are vocally pro-life does not match up with the number of available foster families.

Ah, ok. So you are saying that because prolifers as a group are larger then the pool of foster families, that means that prolifers are against adoption.

Not all prolifers would make good foster parents. Some, like me are single, others are too young, others are quite old, etc. Prolifers as a whole are spread throughout the age spectrum.

All I would have to show to counteract your opinion is that prolifers are more likely to be foster parents, then the general average. If that is true, then prolifers are more open to being foster parents, then the general population.

It's that disparity that's disturbing--becaues clearly those pro-life families are making an economic calculus, and finding that they are either unable or unwilling to take on the burden of another child...

Some of us aren't married, and couldn't be foster parents. Why do you think that all prolifers would make good foster parents?

and don't mind that their banning of abortion would force someone else who is unable or unwilling to care for a child to do so.

All I am saying is that there are plenty of people out there who want to adopt and would be more then happy to take care of a child. The child is wanted, and shouldn't be treated as unwanted just because the parents do not want the child. Society has an obligation to provide for these children, if the parents do not.

The way things used to be is that there were orphanages. Women could leave their babies with the nuns and have the convent raise their children. The support system needs to be there so that mothers see the fact that their child is wanted.

So, don't let gays adopt because it would be wrong to deprive them of a mother and a father.

Yes. The child has a right to a mother and a father.

Why then, do we not take away children from single parents, who are deprived? Why then, do we not ban divorces when children are involved?

Why don't we take children away from single mothers? That would be punishing the parent who cared enough to stay. I'd be all for punishing fathers who walk off away from single moms and abandon their responsibility.

As for divorces, again, you are making my case for me. Divorces aren't beneficial to children, they are extremely harmful. The problem isn't so much divorce, but sole custody. I think it's wrong for a mother or a father to get divorced and prevent their children from seeing their father, unless they are extenuating circumstances. I think it's essential in most divorces that the children have access to both parents on a regular basis.

It would be wrong to deprive those children a mother and a father. Why is it okay for those kids to suffer such an egregious violation of their rights, but adoptive children not?

I agree with your analogy. You are preaching to the choir.

I think it's completely fair to argue quality of life in the same breath as the right to life. Life is more than simply 'existing'; I do think that one must consider what kind of environment the child will be living in must be critical to the decision.

The environment is irrelevant if we don't see the unborn as a human person. How can you argue that putting the unborn in a bad environment is wrong if you aren't assuming that unborn children aren't worthy of the right to life?

All other rights stem from the right to life. You have no other freedoms, if you do not have the right to live, deprive someone of their right to life, and they will lose all their other freedoms. If you don't like what they say, shoot them, that solves the problem.

Then why aren't we doing more to help them? And why should we force more children onto a system that's already overburdened and in some areas on the border of collapse?

It's not the children that are 'forcing themselves' on the system. The children don't have a choice to be born. The question as to how we should provide for them is a prudential one. There are problems associated with the current system that have nothing to do with the willingness of people to adopt. There is plenty of red tape that could be cut.

Exactly. If the child didn't ask to be here, why are we forcing him or her to be here?

She is here. She's already on the doorstop. You are saying that she is unwanted and must die. If you do nothing the child will be born and brought into this world.

How can you tell a child, "I didn't want you to be here, you probably don't want to be here, but I dragged you out here into this world so you can suffer along with us."

It's easy. My mom did. I'm glad I got a chance.

[Ben Kenobi]

Err... No. It's not like that. Please concentrate on what I'm saying. Humans have a natural resistance to killing other humans. This resistance is a primal instinct.

Very true. Why do you think abortion doctors like the abortion pill? They don't have to perform the abortion, just pop the pill in and the patient deals with the rest.

[EPW]

They are doing the baby a service: they go straight to heaven, and have no time to disqualify themselves by messing around on Earth.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Very true. Why do you think abortion doctors like the abortion pill? They don't have to perform the abortion, just pop the pill in and the patient deals with the rest.

Because it's non-surgical.

[EPW]

In fact, I would say abortionists are the most noble people alive today, comparable
to Jesus. They condemn themselves to eternal damnation in order to save hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of souls before they can be corrupted.

[Ben Kenobi]

In fact, I would say abortionists are the most noble people alive today, comparable
to Jesus. They condemn themselves to eternal damnation in order to save hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of souls before they can be corrupted.

So let me get this straight.

The reason the immaculate conception is significant is because original sin only transmits after birth?

[EPW]

No

You get into heaven doing all that Catholic stuff if you live long enough(and have enough mental capacity in order to worship), but everyone knows God makes exception for the babies, retards, etc.

[EPW]

...unless you think unborn babies burn in eternal hell fire, Ben?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Elok
Snuggles, context is key. Pro-choice groups are in effect close enough to "pro-abortion" in this particular case because we're talking about societal elements condoning abortion, giving the impression that it's okay. Now, the jab against Planned Parenthood was unsubstantiated and, I admit, out of line--but I'm arguing with freaking Kid here, cut me some slack.

I suppose that's fair. I've gone back to the old practice of mostly glossing over his posts, so I'm not following your debate* with him.

*Generous term, since you're bringing a howitzer against his rusted spork.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree, all I am arguing is that on average, abortion is the worst decision you can make. You lose the money now, with no hope of recouping anything in the future.

And I don't disagree. But at this moment, I don't think eliminating that option would be helpful.

What reasons? Financially, it's a terrible decision. It's shortsighted, and in the majority of the cases you'd be better off raising your child and waiting to see how things turn out.

Seeing as I've never had to personally face a circumstance regarding abortion, I'm not qualified to say what those reasons are. If I were, I'd give the person in favor of it a fair shake, give them my opinion, and then if they were able to convince me that it was their best option, even with all of their negatives, I wouldn't press the matter further.

Ah, ok. So you are saying that because prolifers as a group are larger then the pool of foster families, that means that prolifers are against adoption.

I'm not. I'm saying that the numbers don't add up, and I think there's a massive problem with that.

Not all prolifers would make good foster parents. Some, like me are single, others are too young, others are quite old, etc. Prolifers as a whole are spread throughout the age spectrum.

Which is completely fair. Not all pro-choicers are ravening baby-killers. Most of us aren't in favor of abortion as a practice, just as a potential answer to someone's situation.

Of course, if not all pro-lifers are good foster parents, why not let those who don't fit the "one woman, one man" rubric adopt, especially if they'd be fantastic parents?

All I would have to show to counteract your opinion is that prolifers are more likely to be foster parents, then the general average. If that is true, then prolifers are more open to being foster parents, then the general population.

Actually, that wouldn't prove much. That would reduce the force of that particular argument, but it wouldn't solve or blunt the problem that there aren't enough parents willing to adopt locally-produced children.

Some of us aren't married, and couldn't be foster parents. Why do you think that all prolifers would make good foster parents?

I never made a judgement on whether they would be good ones or not. I simply said that I think, for the sake of consistency, if they truly value lives as much as they said they did, they'd try to also improve the whole system of child adoption and care.

What's particularly galling is that there's the assumption --particularly among your kind, Ben, the religionists-- that gays can't be good parents.

All I am saying is that there are plenty of people out there who want to adopt and would be more then happy to take care of a child. The child is wanted, and shouldn't be treated as unwanted just because the parents do not want the child. Society has an obligation to provide for these children, if the parents do not.

And I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm simply asking where they are? And if they're there, why aren't we doing more to connect these people?

That sort of fairy tale is precisely why Juno is such a wonderful film--but, being a film, it has that very happy ending.

The real world isn't like that.

The way things used to be is that there were orphanages. Women could leave their babies with the nuns and have the convent raise their children. The support system needs to be there so that mothers see the fact that their child is wanted.

And again, if you've seen my posts, I've not disagreed with this. In fact, I've been supporting it from the beginning.

Why don't we take children away from single mothers? That would be punishing the parent who cared enough to stay. I'd be all for punishing fathers who walk off away from single moms and abandon their responsibility.

But a child, according to you, has a right to a mother and a father. No matter how much the one parent cares for them, they've failed in giving the child that "right".

Yes. The child has a right to a mother and a father.

I won't convince you out of your homophobic and ignorant remarks, so I'm going to just drop this line of argument with you.

As for divorces, again, you are making my case for me. Divorces aren't beneficial to children, they are extremely harmful. The problem isn't so much divorce, but sole custody. I think it's wrong for a mother or a father to get divorced and prevent their children from seeing their father, unless they are extenuating circumstances. I think it's essential in most divorces that the children have access to both parents on a regular basis.

What you're failing to see is that I'm not disagreeing with you on the point that abortion is bad. I'm disagreeing with you that banning it is the solution.

Just because there's an unpalatable answer out there, that doesn't mean we remove it as an option unless we have enough suitable alternatives that are of sufficient quality to make up for it.

The environment is irrelevant if we don't see the unborn as a human person. How can you argue that putting the unborn in a bad environment is wrong if you aren't assuming that unborn children aren't worthy of the right to life?

The environment is completely relevant, regardless of whether we see the unborn or not.

Unlike lower species, we have the capability to look forward and make analyses based on the data we have. You know, reason, not faith.

If you don't like what they say, shoot them, that solves the problem.

Yes, something the anti-abortionists have done with lots of success in the past.

It's not the children that are 'forcing themselves' on the system. The children don't have a choice to be born.

The parents have a choice in that matter.

The question as to how we should provide for them is a prudential one. There are problems associated with the current system that have nothing to do with the willingness of people to adopt. There is plenty of red tape that could be cut.

I don't disagree.

She is here. She's already on the doorstop. You are saying that she is unwanted and must die. If you do nothing the child will be born and brought into this world.

He isn't here yet. He's about to arrive. There's a small window for you to make the decision whether to allow the child to be brought into this world or not.

It's easy. My mom did. I'm glad I got a chance.

Personal anecdotes do not carry much weight.

[Wiglaf]

Yo momma carries much weight

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Yo momma carries much weight

Uh, that's not my mom.

That's the **** about to be jammed up your ass.