• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Abortion debate (Split from Obama Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
t_BuckeyeScott;1132041; said:
So under that same set of principles. My baby is born at 9 months naturally. One month later I decide my baby should be able to survive on its own. I leave my baby in the woods to fend for itself. Baby dies.
Click to expand...


I realize that BKB has already addressed this to a point but I had to chime in as well. The baby you leave in the woods has a chance to survive, it can breath on its own, it can cry to make noise to alert someone to help it, unlike your 11 week old fetus who wouldn't even take one breath on its own, not even ONE breath and the fetus certainly isn't capable of screaming for help. You can NOT use hypotheticals that aren't the eqivalent of apples to apples... find an apple to apple hypo and I will certainly give it thought.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1132126; said:
Please forgive for not realizing I had to explain that the killing of an unborn baby is unlawful by the law given out by God.
Click to expand...


In this country we are given the right to freedom of religion.... therefore, you can not force your religion into the laws that everyone, despite their religion, has to adhere to.

Breaking it down into simplistic terms... As best I can tell, YOUR life is governed first and foremost by your relationship with God. Secondly, the laws the government have in place. On a whole, the rules the government make are what we all typically, as a public, have to follow. Whether or not you choose to put your religious laws above those is your own doing (which I believe you have choosen to do.) Having made that point really clear though you have to understand just because your religious beliefs trump the government laws that isn't the case for everyone else. It seems to me that you are not capable of allowing/respecting people to have an opinion that differs from yours... if you did allow/respect people to have opinions in opposition to yours then, the abortion topic wouldn't be an issue... it would be simple, abortion would not be something you would ever do (mostly in part because you are NOT capable of getting pregnant) however, you would allow people to have the freedom of choice.

I get so tired of people feeling they are superior to others, that their way is the ONLY way, their way is the correct way. The world is full of arrogant/close-minded people...

I will ask you these again because after a quick skim of this thread I have yet to see the answers.... what gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body AND what are you going to do with all these unwanted children (in realistic terms, not in terms of putting them in orphanges?)
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1132694; said:
Can I take out a life insurance policy as soon as I learn my wife/girlfriend has tested positive for pregnancy? If she has a miscarriage do I collect?
Click to expand...
No because the insurance companies won't do it. you're kind of reaching on this one.
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;1132714; said:
No because the insurance companies won't do it. you're kind of reaching on this one.
Click to expand...

It was my idea that I tossed out to BKB so I feel I can appropriately respond... if the government accepts the idea that a "human" is a "human" from the moment of conception then I think this would become something that insurance companies would have to face... I can't imagine they wouldn't immediately change policy structures given the amount of miscarriages though.

If it is made where you can be charged for murder of such "human" then I certainly think you should at least be able to carry a life insurance policy on it... not a stretch in my mind at all... If I can go to jail for murdering it then I would certainly like the ability to insure it against an untimely death... do not mistake this argument by thinking I mean, I should be able to get insurance the moment I find out I am pregnant and then have an abortion a few weeks later and still collect... this is merely another ramification that could happen (insurance companies suffer) because if you consider abortion murder of another human then the fetus has to be considered a human across the board.... am I making sense or do I need more coffee??
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeRyn;1132717; said:
It was my idea that I tossed out to BKB so I feel I can appropriately respond... if the government accepts the idea that a "human" is a "human" from the moment of conception then I think this would become something that insurance companies would have to face... I can't imagine they wouldn't immediately change policy structures given the amount of miscarriages though.

If it is made where you can be charged for murder of such "human" then I certainly think you should at least be able to carry a life insurance policy on it... not a stretch in my mind at all... If I can go to jail for murdering it then I would certainly like the ability to insure it against an untimely death... do not mistake this argument by thinking I mean, I should be able to get insurance the moment I find out I am pregnant and then have an abortion a few weeks later and still collect... this is merely another ramification that could happen (insurance companies suffer) because if you consider abortion murder of another human then the fetus has to be considered a human across the board.... am I making sense or do I need more coffee??
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Upvote 0
Don't know the answer here...

Does anyone know what the ancient Hebrew people (OK - women) thought about birth control. Did they use any herbs or plants to control unwanted pregnancies by inducing miscarriages? While men can talk about it, it is a woman who gets pregnant, and I seriously doubt that it was not a topic among women back then when another baby might put a family into starvation mode and prevent the woman from performing the daily labor essential to family survival.

If they did - and I'd bet they did - there would be some sort of written record of that practice if the men who made the laws disapproved.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1132756; said:
Don't know the answer here...

Does anyone know what the ancient Hebrew people (OK - women) thought about birth control. Did they use any herbs or plants to control unwanted pregnancies by inducing miscarriages? While men can talk about it, it is a woman who gets pregnant, and I seriously doubt that it was not a topic among women back then when another baby might put a family into starvation mode and prevent the woman from performing the daily labor essential to family survival.

If they did - and I'd bet they did - there would be some sort of written record of that practice if the men who made the laws disapproved.
Click to expand...

Jewish thoughts on the matter here
 
Upvote 0
"Abortion" not an allowed search term in Government Sponsored Health Database

Rather than start another thread - thought I'd place this here:

"Abortion" not an allowed search term in Government Funded Health Database - WIRED

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results. Called Popline, the search site is run by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. It's funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, the federal office in charge of providing foreign aid, including health care funding, to developing nations.
The massive database indexes a broad range of reproductive health literature, including titles like "Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births," and "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005."
Click to expand...

I know, this sounds like one of those conspiracy theory items, where the Feds trample on free speech by censoring the means by which materials can be sought and viewed. Surely, that cannot be true?

Yet the core facts are correct: Johns Hopkins stopped the word abortion - because they wanted to keep keep getting federal funding for the POPLINE database.
From: Dickson, Debbie L. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:26 AM
To: Won, Gloria
Subject: RE: Popline retrieval discrepancy

Hi Gloria,

Yes we did make a change in POPLINE. We recently made all abortion
terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was
best for now. In addition to the terms you?re already using, you
could try using ?Fertility Control, Postconception?. This is the
broader term to our ?Abortion? terms and most records have both in
the keyword fields. Also, adding ?unwanted w2 pregnancy? in place
of aborti*. We have a keyword Pregnancy, Unwanted and there are 2517
records with aborti* & unwanted w2 pregnancy

I hope this helps.

Debbie

From: Won, Gloria [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:51 PM
To: Dickson, Debbie L.
Subject: RE: Popline retrieval discrepancy

Hello Debbie:

I left a message on your voice mail today regarding POPLINE, but
didn?t explain the problem I?m encountering, so here is an email
follow-up.

When I ran this strategy on Jan 18, 2008, POPLINE retrieved 1684 refs;
when I re-ran the same strategy today, POPLINE retrieved fewer refs, ie,
1478 refs. Usually, when a search is re-run at a later date, the total
number of references retrieved is more, not less. Has POPLINE
undergone some major change in the past few months that might explain
the decreased retrieval? What can account for this discrepancy?

(strategy removed)

I also tested a second strategy that was developed in Jan 2008 and had
similar results, ie, fewer refs retrieved this time than previous.
Puzzling?!?

Appreciate a prompt response --

Thank you, Gloria

Gloria Won, MLIS
H.M. Fishbon Memorial Library
UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion
1600 Divisadero Street, Room A116
San Francisco, CA 94115
415 885-7378
Click to expand...
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 12:48:09 PM (GMT-0800)
America/Los_Angeles
Hi Debbie ?

Thank you for your quick response to my e-mail. I have forwarded your
e-mail to researchers with whom I am working; I suspect they will be as
puzzled as I about the decision to make ?all abortion terms stop
words? in the government funded, publically available ?POPLINE?
database. Even more troubling is the implications for the average user
? eliminating this term essentially blocks access to the reports in
the database and ultimately to information about abortion. ?Unwanted
w2 pregnancy? is not a synonym for abortion.

My colleague, Gail Sorrough and I are also forwarding this e-mail to
several organizations whose members are primarily medical librarians.
We suspect they will also be puzzled by the notion that a perfectly good
noun such as ?abortion? should for no apparent reason be classified
as a ?stop word? and equated with ?a?, ?an?, ?the?.

A better explanation is deserved ? the explanation should also be
posted on the website for all users to know, e.g., ?The POPLINE
database producers have decided to ignore ?abortion? as a searchable
to term because ??. ?

We look forward to a better explanation for why this term has been
eliminated; all of the users of POPLINE deserve to know.

Regards,
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
So after a weekend to gather my thoughts and ensure my posts are responsible, I'm back. I didn't have much time this weekend anyway. This shouldn't offend anyone, but I have a wife and kids who I do like more than the debate board at the Planet.

I think 2 of my discussions became intertwined. I began the discussion with the idea that someone believed that a human life is human life at conception. And for the purposes of that argument the point was inarguable. And for that point I'm not willing to argue it. As an elected official I would consider these aborted babies murdered constituents and be forced to act on that belief.

Now Ryn, BKB and I also ended up discussing the idea of what makes a human a human. I think those of us in this discussion realized that convincing the other party was extremely unlikely. Ryn asked me what changed my wife's mind on the issue. I tried to answer (consider that I'm not my wife). I admitted there were some gray areas when considering the choice between the life of a mother and unborn child, and to a lesser extent rape. I also think we got this discussion a little muddled by putting the cart before the horse somewhat. There's no reason to discuss murder unless you're either willing to concede (or concede for the sake of argument) that the unborn baby is separate human life. This is also probably my fault. I believed I misinterpreted a post that I thought conceded for the sake of argument that point. Obviously, I was wrong after rereading some of BKB's posts.

I'm fine with taking blame for the discussions intertwining. I'm not sure either discussion can go further. If you're ok with the idea that the unborn child is not a human life, then by all means you must act on that belief, just don't expect me not to act on the opposite.

I'm still willing to still discuss either issue, but only separately.
 
Upvote 0
Murder by any Name is???

Tlangs;1130717; said:
If I beleive something is murder, how can I stand by, be silent, and let it happpen(assuming I am in a position to influence policy)?
Click to expand...

While I agree totally, there are those who believe it is their right to make a choice as in Pro Choice. But for me, murder by any name is still murder.

I know this is controversial, but when you end life, it is murder.


:(:(
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top