Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Ronald R. Harbers]

What is Straw-man?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

He's a little-known superhero from DC comics. His cousin starred in The Wizard of Oz. Big feud erupted between the two after the cousin hit it big. Fascinating comic strip though. His villains never seemed to appear, though he always ranted against them...

 

[RandomPhantom700]

To everyone else: sorry, I had to.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

What ever do you mean?

 

[Flatlander]

What ever do you mean?

Mr. Harbers, when one misrepresents a position with which one disagrees in order to refute it more easily, one is committing the logical fallacy of "the straw man". It is named such because it is very easily refuted, or "knocked down".

For example,

I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!

Nobody has claimed that this type of activity should be acceptable. You have invented it, in order to refute it. Essentially, you are arguing with yourself on the internet.

Crazy, eh?

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I still do not understand. What is the compromise?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I still do not understand. What is the compromise?

Do they have a smiley of someone banging their head against a brick wall?

 

[Flatlander]

I still do not understand. What is the compromise?

Mr. Harbers, let me be blunt. Read the entire thread, consider the arguments put forth, and contribute to the discussion in a positive and logical fashion, if you so choose. That is what we do here.

Now, let's get back on topic.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I guess I will never understand. My Grandfather was right.

 

[Flatlander]

Apparently.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I wish to understand. How do you think?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

To understand both the issue, and the topic, please read the thread from the beginning. I believe your answers are in there.


My perspective - It's not for me to say if it should or shouldn't be available. It's not my decision to decide for others what is best for them. I can only decide for myself, and I personally will never have to make that decision. I believe that regardless of where you look, there will be a flaw.

Only ok when the mothers life is at risk. Only in cases of rape. Only in cases of incest. Only within "X" months. Tell the parents/don't tell the parents, etc. There are flaws at every stop point. The key component of a compromise is give/take. Roe vs Wade set up that compromise. Other laws have built upon that. It's not perfect, but it does allow women to weight things out for themselves and make a decision, a choice that they can hopefully live with and someday come to terms with.

For those who are so set in the 'against' camp, what if it is you, your sister, your mother, your loved one who will die, or was raped, etc? If we outlaw it, who will care for all the unwanted children? What about the back alley clinics? Will they again open shop and cause the same or worse tragedies that they did prior to Roe vs Wade?

I firmly believe in the sanctity of life...all life. Human, animal and plant. But we all must decide what amount of death is acceptable. I've made my decisions, and unlike most things, I will keep that one private.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I must be a total retard. I read the whole thread. Still, I am confused.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What part of it do you not understand?

The original premise is below:

I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.

Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue.

What do you think?

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I realize that I not as smart as you folks. Maybe I just got lost in the translation. My clan would never kill a child.

 

[Tgace]

Do they have a smiley of someone banging their head against a brick wall?

 

[kenpo tiger]

I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!

Who writes your material? Yeesh.

And I agree with HHJH - lay off the exclamation points. We're listening... for now, at least.

And -- don't paint us all with the same broad stroke. Especially if you don't understand the premise and related arguments. Lurking might be recommended for now. Or are you going to accuse me of something, too? (omg - I sound like Robertson) Listen to Flatlander. He's a Moderator, and trying to help you.

 

[shesulsa]

I realize that I not as smart as you folks. Maybe I just got lost in the translation. My clan would never kill a child.

Lost in translation? Is English your second language? Earnestly asking, here.

Also - to which "clan" are you referring?

 

[Flatlander]

Still, I am confused.

Sometimes, I'm confused too. That's when I use www.google.com. I'm able to better research what it is these curious people are talking about, so I can follow their discussion, and contribute if and when I can. And sometimes when I shouldn't. So don't sweat it.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Mr. Harbers

I do not think anyone is advocating sucking the brains out of a baby as it is being born. Although anti-abortion groups like to portray "partial-birth abortion" as such, that is not really the case.

I would be happy if there were no need for abortion. It is a terribly decision for any woman or couple to have to make.

You refer to your "clan" - but oftentimes the women who are facing such a decision do not have a supportive family structure to help them with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Sometimes they may the victims of child abuse and rape from inside the family. There are truly horrific things that happen that should not. If such a young woman is alone, young, scared, and faces a life, potentially, of being homeless or beaten, what would you suggest? Would you offer to house her, feed her, get her good prenatal care for 9-10 months (gestation = 38-40 weeks in humans), see her through the life-changing process of birth, and then care for her baby for the next, oh...lifetime?

The things we've been discussing here have been on where, if at all, one would "draw a line in the sand". No-one here (I think I may say this with a fair amount of confidence) thinks abortion in and of itself is a good thing to have to have happen or to experience. Most folks would agree, too, that if abortion is the decision, earlier is far better than later (near birth).

Of course, if the late-gestation fetus has developed in such a way that the continued pregnancy and delivery would seriously harm the mother's health, and/or future fertility, should she not have the option of discussing with her doctor a pregnancy termination?

It's not pleasant, it's not "nice", but it's something that some women have been faced with. It's a reality.