New Documentary “Blood Money”: Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Quotas

[tajitj]

I know, I know there are alot of documentaries coming out. But it does not hurt to watch another one. I plan on buying and watching the ones coming from our friends. Abortion is a big issue for some so I figured it might be of interest.


Found this via RightSoup.com (http://rightsoup.com/new-documentary-blood-money-planned-parenthoods-abortion-quotas/), it is a good site, check it out.


YouTube - Bloodmoney Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaTywSDmls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Frightsoup%2Ecom%2Fnew%2Ddocument ary%2Dblood%2Dmoney%2Dplanned%2Dparenthoods%2Dabor tion%2Dquotas%2F&feature=player_embedded)

[KAYA]

Thanks! I was at a recent town hall discussing issues with an Obamatron and he asked me since I claim to be a libertarian why am I against abortion and I told him it is because I believe in our founding documents which state we have the natural God given right to LIFE, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness. Abortion steals the life of one in order to convenience the life of another.

[Reason]

I call bullshit on the idea that PP has quotas on killing babies kkthxbai.

[BlackTyrone]

Anyone seen this movie?

[hazek]

Can someone prove me wrong please:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm against the use of violence unless it's for self defense.

Those who do not want to get pregnant, have a variety of measures they can use to control whether they want to allow that to happen or not with a very high efficiency.

If a person recognizes, that they are unable to provide for a child for what ever reason and employs these measures but for what ever reason gets pregnant anyway, they are not entering this state willingly.

If it's against their will and it puts their body and life in danger, killing a fetus in it's early stage is no different then killing a criminal in self defense who attacks you in an alley since the fetus threatens their private property (their way of life, their body).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where I went wrong with my reasoning?

[Baptist]

Anyone seen this movie?

Yes. The pro life club at my school showed it in November. I emailed two dozen churches in a thirty minute radius, every college Republican and spiritual club at colleges within an hour radius, and every tea party within an hour radius. Plus we took out ads in the paper. Rented a 300 person auditorium and about twenty people showed up. Welcome to America. 60,000 people cram our stadium to watch people in tight pants throw around a dead pig but we could not get more than twenty to watch this movie.

The flick is good, definitely worth watching. A few of the women came off as exaggerating but other than that it just presents facts that all of us in the fight know to be true. There are no graphic pictures or video, and no naked bodies or boobs.. There are three or four semi-graphic descriptions of abortions gone wrong, though. These are given by a lady who used to own a Planned Parenthood in Texas.

[2young2vote]

Can someone prove me wrong please:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm against the use of violence unless it's for self defense.

Those who do not want to get pregnant, have a variety of measures they can use to control whether they want to allow that to happen or not with a very high efficiency.

If a person recognizes, that they are unable to provide for a child for what ever reason and employs these measures but for what ever reason gets pregnant anyway, they are not entering this state willingly.

If it's against their will and it puts their body and life in danger, killing a fetus in it's early stage is no different then killing a criminal in self defense who attacks you in an alley since the fetus threatens their private property (their way of life, their body).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where I went wrong with my reasoning?

I very much disagree with this bold statement. You need to ask yourself what the natural point of having sex is. The point, reason, or objective of having sex is to produce more humans. It is not to love a person more or to have a good feeling, it is to have children. No matter what reasoning you have behind doing it, it always has the same natural purpose. By consenting and having sex you are engaging in an act that you KNOW can or will produce another human. Because you are engaging in the act you are consenting to have children. You can have as many condoms or pills as you want, but if you are willingly engaging in an act that you know can or will get someone pregnant, then you are consenting. This isn't like driving to the store and there was an accident on the way. This is like being in a demolition derby and saying you weren't willing to having your car banged up. It makes no sense at all.

[hazek]

When used correctly, a male condom is about 98 per cent effective.

from http://www.condomeffectiveness.com/

The birth control pill, ring, and patch can be up to 99.9% effective

from http://www.pregnancy-info.net/pregnancy_pill.html



So no, if I use protection, I have sex for the fun of it and certainly do not want to get pregnant which also isn't going to happen 99.9% of the time.


It's almost like saying you loaded a gun with blanks and aimed and shot at a person therefor you meant to kill that person.

And it's actually exactly like giving someone a bulletproof vest, then stepping away aiming and firing at the vest and therefor having the intention of killing that person.

[dannno]

You need to ask yourself what the natural point of having sex is. The point, reason, or objective of having sex is to produce more humans. It is not to love a person more or to have a good feeling, it is to have children. No matter what reasoning you have behind doing it, it always has the same natural purpose.

Uhhhhh..... I know HUNDREDS of people who have had sex hundreds of times a year for years and years and years and years and NEVER have kids. So do you, most likely, unless you live in a REALLY small REALLY conservative town. It's just a part of the natural relationship that males and females have (and in some cases male/male or female/female). I have a friend who is with a girl and they NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER plan on having kids, they've been together for years and don't intend on leaving each other, they have sex all the time.

Sex is required for good mental, physical and spiritual health.

So I completely disagree that sex is only for having kids.

[hazek]

dannno what do you think about my argument about abortions being self defense if pregnancy wasn't entered into willingly? Is it flawed somewhere?

[dannno]

dannno what do you think about my argument about abortions being self defense if pregnancy wasn't entered into willingly? Is it flawed somewhere?

People kill animals for food, and I completely convinced that killing animals is far more painful for the victim than very early term abortions, in fact I don't think that early term abortions affect the fetus at all, I don't think the fetus is 'aware' at that stage. It is simply potential for life, which I will get to in a minute. People kill, people destroy parts of the earth, people sin. It's part of life, and not all that horrible. Although people should attempt to reduce their impact in these areas (except the bullshit sins, like having sex). That means you can eat meat all the time, if that's your choice, or you can choose to kill less animals and eat less meat, or eat no meat, if you choose.. The key is to live life to it's fullest without creating too much unnecessary negative impact. Hopefully people will choose animals that are treated and killed in a more humane manner. Hopefully people having sex will do their best not to get pregnant unless they want to. Not having sex to prevent pregnancy, in my opinion, is like someone who loves meat and craves it all the time forcing themselves to be a vegetarian. You only live once, live your life, sex is a beautiful thing, it's our greatest gift.

So some people make the argument that a fetus is potential life, and we must protect it at all costs even if it doesn't feel pain.. Well, I don't buy that, because with that logic having sex with a condom is killing potential life as well, and nobody can convince me that it isn't. When a girl decides she is attracted to a guy and she consciously or unconsciously decides that he is 'mate worthy', then the girl at some point changes her mind for whatever reason and decides to push the guy away, that is killing potential life, just as much as abortion imo. People could be having kids all over the place if they lowered their standards and weren't thinking about the future, but we aren't, we are denying the creation of life constantly throughout our lives in favor of creating what we believe is a better life in the future, whether it is ours or our childrens'.

I don't think abortion is ever a good thing, obviously the goal is to have sex and prevent the pregnancy in some way before it happens, and if it doesn't, and the person really doesn't want the child, it should be taken care of asap. I think most people are pretty rational about this, and most people would agree it should be done as early as possible if done at all. I think medical abortions are a violent way of doing it, and I prefer natural abortive remedies which cause miscarriage. It is much cheaper, and I actually coined the phrase "Abortion Industrial Complex" in the last thread because I think there is an abortion industry in this country that is suppressing natural methods for birth control in favor of expensive and violent medical procedures.

[Brett85]

Sex is required for good mental, physical and spiritual health.

I'm not so sure about the spiritual part.

[hazek]

Interesting take dannno, thanks

[dannno]

I'm not so sure about the spiritual part.

According to LDS doctrine you cannot enter the highest spiritual kingdom in heaven unless you get married and have kids.

And look at Catholic Priests.. I mean, ya, some men don't have much in the way of a sex drive, they would make good Catholic Priests and there are plenty of good Catholic Priests.. but look at the ones who actually have a healthy sex drive, they end up molesting a bunch of kids.. That's because healthy men with healthy sex drives and healthy urges towards women around their own age won't become Priests in the first place. They just won't. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever in a million years would subject myself to that, because I'm rated a solid 9 in sex drive -> Sex drives are one of those things you have on a scale of 0-10. Most men in their teens and twenties hover around 7 or 8, most women hover around 3 or 4.. but there are plenty of men that are down in the 0-1, and plenty of women in the 9-10 range. A person with a healthy sex drive not having sex is not going to be spiritually healthy. A person with a low sex drive not having sex can be spiritually healthy.

[jmdrake]

Uhhhhh..... I know HUNDREDS of people who have had sex hundreds of times a year for years and years and years and years and NEVER have kids.

And Sarah Palin shot at a caribou 8 times before hitting. So?



So do you, most likely, unless you live in a REALLY small REALLY conservative town.


So now you're going to persume what someone you have never met is really doing in their private bedroom? :rolleyes: (And note the ID is "2 young 2 vote").



It's just a part of the natural relationship that males and females have (and in some cases male/male or female/female). I have a friend who is with a girl and they NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER plan on having kids, they've been together for years and don't intend on leaving each other, they have sex all the time.

Sex is required for good mental, physical and spiritual health.


Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa.... Ummm... No.



So I completely disagree that sex is only for having kids.

The primary biological reason for sex is reproduction. Yeah there are other benefits. And you don't have to be a "believer" to understand this. Even from an "evolutionary" point of view, sex can best be explained as a means to propagate the species. The fact is that individuals in the species used to die out a lot younger than they do now. And there were high infant mortality rates. So for the species to survive the members needed to propagate early and often. Now there is the same sex drive, but different needs. (Some may argue that the drive is even higher due to more cultural stimulation, but that's another topic).

Further, the person you were responding to said this: No matter what reasoning you have behind doing it, it always has the same natural purpose. Of course there are other reasons for sex, but the natural purpose (evolutionary or creationary) is reproduction. That doesn't mean sex without reproduction is wrong. It does mean though that whenever fertile man and woman have sex there is the possibility of reproduction. If someone really doesn't want kids they can reduce that risk to practically zero.

[jmdrake]

Oh, and here's something else.

If it's against their will and it puts their body and life in danger, killing a fetus in it's early stage is no different then killing a criminal in self defense who attacks you in an alley since the fetus threatens their private property (their way of life, their body).

I don't know about "libertarian theory", but legally you don't have the right to kill someone just because he threatens your "private property" or your "way of life". Self defense only applies to protecting your own life or the life of someone else. You must feel yourself to be physically in imminent danger to successfully raise the defense of self defense.

[dannno]

So now you're going to persume what someone you have never met is really doing in their private bedroom? :rolleyes: (And note the ID is "2 young 2 vote").

I did say "most likely" and "unless (conservative town)", but I specifically made that statement to him because I'm pretty sure his peer group is having more sex than the parents of said peer group.. unless it's a really conservative peer group he's in.. in which case that last part could STILL be true..




Even from an "evolutionary" point of view, sex can best be explained as a means to propagate the species. The fact is that individuals in the species used to die out a lot younger than they do now. And there were high infant mortality rates. So for the species to survive the members needed to propagate early and often.

Thank you, this proves my point.. Our bodies are designed to pump out a bunch of kids at a young age and use our physical strength to feed and protect them. The more kids we have the more likely for more people surviving. Now we have as situation where supporting kids is all about being responsible and hardworking, often in non-physical ways, so older men are better able to support children. Younger men are better off educating themselves rather than having children, even though biologically that is what they are supposed to be doing! It's totally fucked up.




Now there is the same sex drive, but different needs.

Ya, precisely.. we also have more technology to help prevent births, and since young people aren't ready to support kids in this society yet they are biologically inclined to do so, birth control becomes very good to have.

[pcosmar]

so, birth control becomes very good to have.

Self control is a much better thing to have.

[jmdrake]

I did say "most likely" and "unless (conservative town)", but I specifically made that statement to him because I'm pretty sure his peer group is having more sex than the parents of said peer group.. unless it's a really conservative peer group he's in.. in which case that last part could STILL be true..


All cause for speculation, but continue.



Thank you, this proves my point.. Our bodies are designed to pump out a bunch of kids at a young age and use our physical strength to feed and protect them. The more kids we have the more likely for more people surviving. Now we have as situation where supporting kids is all about being responsible and hardworking, often in non-physical ways, so older men are better able to support children. Younger men are better off educating themselves rather than having children, even though biologically that is what they are supposed to be doing! It's totally fucked up.


That doesn't mean that sex is "required for good health". In fact many eastern religions feel quite the opposite. (Sex uses up "chi" etc). But yes, I agree that the change is social expectations that puts off marriage until after college (or in some cases graduate school) adds to the sexual tension in society.



Ya, precisely.. we also have more technology to help prevent births, and since young people aren't ready to support kids in this society yet they are biologically inclined to do so, birth control becomes very good to have.

I didn't know anybody was arguing against birth control. :confused:

[oyarde]

And Sarah Palin shot at a caribou 8 times before hitting. So?



So now you're going to persume what someone you have never met is really doing in their private bedroom? :rolleyes: (And note the ID is "2 young 2 vote").



Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa.... Ummm... No.



The primary biological reason for sex is reproduction. Yeah there are other benefits. And you don't have to be a "believer" to understand this. Even from an "evolutionary" point of view, sex can best be explained as a means to propagate the species. The fact is that individuals in the species used to die out a lot younger than they do now. And there were high infant mortality rates. So for the species to survive the members needed to propagate early and often. Now there is the same sex drive, but different needs. (Some may argue that the drive is even higher due to more cultural stimulation, but that's another topic).

Further, the person you were responding to said this: No matter what reasoning you have behind doing it, it always has the same natural purpose. Of course there are other reasons for sex, but the natural purpose (evolutionary or creationary) is reproduction. That doesn't mean sex without reproduction is wrong. It does mean though that whenever fertile man and woman have sex there is the possibility of reproduction. If someone really doesn't want kids they can reduce that risk to practically zero.

Now I am wanting some grilled caribou .

[MaxPower]

Can someone prove me wrong please:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm against the use of violence unless it's for self defense.

Those who do not want to get pregnant, have a variety of measures they can use to control whether they want to allow that to happen or not with a very high efficiency.

If a person recognizes, that they are unable to provide for a child for what ever reason and employs these measures but for what ever reason gets pregnant anyway, they are not entering this state willingly.

If it's against their will and it puts their body and life in danger, killing a fetus in it's early stage is no different then killing a criminal in self defense who attacks you in an alley since the fetus threatens their private property (their way of life, their body).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where I went wrong with my reasoning?
You make it significant that the woman is not pregnant willingly, but ignore the fact that the baby did not "invade" her property intentionally, either. The situation is not analogous to a mugger in an alley; it is more akin to, say, a fisherman whose nets accidentally snag someone who was adrift at sea. Neither party "chose" for the person to end up on the boat, but he/she is there anyway. Now, does the fisherman have the "right" to throw his accidental snag back in the ocean and drown them?

Or, better yet, pregnancy is particularly analogous to the situation one has with a pair of conjoined twins, one of whom is physically dependent on the other for survival (as sometimes happens). Now, does the stronger twin have a "right" to have his/her sibling killed? Only in life-or-death situations wherein only one of them can be saved would the dependent twin be "cut loose."

[hazek]

Well technically when something starts to grow inside your belly without you permission I think you could call that an invasion? :) And intentions are completely irrelevant.

[dannno]

That doesn't mean that sex is "required for good health". In fact many eastern religions feel quite the opposite. (Sex uses up "chi" etc).

Ya that's something I completely disagree with some of the eastern religions.. Tantric sex, on the other hand... that is awesome.




But yes, I agree that the change is social expectations that puts off marriage until after college (or in some cases graduate school) adds to the sexual tension in society.

Most girls seem to like it in general, they get more time to decide before the pressure of their natural biological clock kicks in.. so they get to try dating more guys first.. but then there is this weird balance they have between maintaining relationships with guys and keeping themselves 'pure'. Most guys won't stand for a girlfriend who isn't putting out, so if they want to date guys they almost have to.

Most guys seem to like it cause they get to at least attempt to try out as many girls as possible (as in sex, not dating).

If you're religious, then it can potentially be pretty difficult.





I didn't know anybody was arguing against birth control. :confused:

Well, specifically, unmarried couples who don't plan on having kids in the near future and are having sex.

Because some people who use birth control REALLY DON'T want to have kids, and birth control isn't always 100% effective, so it can lead to abortions (which, again, I'd prefer to see natural abortive remedies used within the first month of pregnancy)

[dannno]

Well technically when something starts to grow inside your belly without you permission I think you could call that an invasion? :) And intentions are completely irrelevant.

Ya what if two people didn't know that having sex leads to pregnancy? Is it the knowledge of the so-called "intention" that would make abortion a crime?

[MaxPower]

Well technically when something starts to grow inside your belly without you permission I think you could call that an invasion? :) And intentions are completely irrelevant.
Is your dependent conjoined twin "invading" your space, giving you the discretionary authority to brutally dismember him/her, or have it done by a doctor? Obviously, natural states into which one was born are not properly analogous to conscious criminal acts. You clearly did not think intentions were irrelevant when you discussed the woman's willingness/lack thereof in becoming pregnant.

[HazyHusky420]

I very much disagree with this bold statement. You need to ask yourself what the natural point of having sex is. The point, reason, or objective of having sex is to produce more humans. It is not to love a person more or to have a good feeling, it is to have children. No matter what reasoning you have behind doing it, it always has the same natural purpose.

I'm glad most east Asian cultures aren't like that. They're not all "eww" when it comes to sex. For them it's a form of socializing. Always has been.

Oh, and teeth is for chewing food so you can swallow it and live, yet people use it to pleasure themselves with unhealthy food. I guess that's also a big no-no?



By consenting and having sex you are engaging in an act that you KNOW can or will produce another human. Because you are engaging in the act you are consenting to have children. You can have as many condoms or pills as you want, but if you are willingly engaging in an act that you know can or will get someone pregnant, then you are consenting. This isn't like driving to the store and there was an accident on the way. This is like being in a demolition derby and saying you weren't willing to having your car banged up. It makes no sense at all.

So I guess "pleasuring" yourself is consenting? By that logic "pleasuring" and periods are murder.

[HazyHusky420]

Why do some people make such a big deal out of abortion? Abortion doesn't mean shit when your house is unlawfully repossessed by the banks.

I personally don't give a crap about abortion. Anyone else here indifferent towards abortion? Eat a fetus sandwich or bash an abortion doctor on the head with a bat. I don't care.

[hazek]

Well if the woman got pregnant and didn't use any protection then certainly her intention to not get pregnant wouldn't have mattered. Likewise if she wanted to get pregnant but used protection and didn't get pregnant, her intention wouldn't have mattered.

All that matters are her actions. And the act of using protection has a well known effect.

As for your conjoined twin analogy I don't think it applies since they are both already born and have a medical condition. It's not like one of them is forcing this condition on the other either.

[hazek]

I personally don't give a crap about abortion. Anyone else here indifferent towards abortion? Eat a fetus sandwich or bash an abortion doctor on the head with a bat. I don't care.

Personally I want to understand whats the morally correct choice if I believe that the initiation of force is immoral unless for self defense and it's the sole reason why I'm posting in this thread at all. I want to understand this issue for me alone.

[oyarde]

Does planned parenthood recieve tax money ? If so , it should not . That Would be immoral.

[Natalie]

//

[Natalie]

//

[HazyHusky420]

Does planned parenthood recieve tax money ? If so , it should not . That Would be immoral.

They do, which I also oppose, but otherwise i'm indifferent towards abortion.

Pro-lifers are just as annoying as radical feminists. Screw them all. I hope that one day a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer get into a fist fight wondering into the middle of the road and both get squashed by an eighteen wheeler.

[oyarde]

They do, which I also oppose, but otherwise i'm indifferent towards abortion.

Pro-lifers are just as annoying as radical feminists. Screw them all. I hope that one day a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer get into a fist fight wondering into the middle of the road and both get squashed by an eighteen wheeler.

I really do not waste time thinking about it. While it is something I would not do personally .... It definately is not a Federal Govt. issue . Most definately though , it should recieve NO tax money .

[MaxPower]

Personally I want to understand whats the morally correct choice if I believe that the initiation of force is immoral unless for self defense and it's the sole reason why I'm posting in this thread at all. I want to understand this issue for me alone.
Well, you did not adequately rebut my counter to your argument, and have not responded to my more recent reply, which was posted at 7:31, and which I will quote again below:


Is your dependent conjoined twin "invading" your space, giving you the discretionary authority to brutally dismember him/her, or have it done by a doctor? Obviously, natural states into which one was born are not properly analogous to conscious criminal acts. You clearly did not think intentions were irrelevant when you discussed the woman's willingness/lack thereof in becoming pregnant.

[hazek]

Well, you did not adequately rebut my counter to your argument, and have not responded to my more recent reply, which was posted at 7:31, and which I will quote again below:

I thought I did:


Well if the woman got pregnant and didn't use any protection then certainly her intention to not get pregnant wouldn't have mattered. Likewise if she wanted to get pregnant but used protection and didn't get pregnant, her intention wouldn't have mattered.

All that matters are her actions. And the act of using protection has a well known effect.

As for your conjoined twin analogy I don't think it applies since they are both already born and have a medical condition. It's not like one of them is forcing this condition on the other either.

[MaxPower]

Hazek, I see that I overlooked your response to my second post, probably because you didn't quote my previous entry- when I make an argument directed towards a particular poster, I tend to scroll down the thread looking for a "quote box" of my previous post. I will respond now:


Well if the woman got pregnant and didn't use any protection then certainly her intention to not get pregnant wouldn't have mattered. Likewise if she wanted to get pregnant but used protection and didn't get pregnant, her intention wouldn't have mattered.

All that matters are her actions. And the act of using protection has a well known effect.
Sexual intercourse has an even more well-known effect. "Using protection" does not ensure that you will not become pregnant- it only decreases the likelihood. If you have sex with someone, you have taken the risk of pregnancy. This is not the central thrust of my argument, however; abortion is wrong because it is a straightforward violation of the non-aggression principle. The baby has done nothing aggressive; the assertion that it is an "intruder" is simply fallacious, as I will explain in greater detail below.



As for your conjoined twin analogy I don't think it applies since they are both already born and have a medical condition. It's not like one of them is forcing this condition on the other either.
The baby is not "forcing" itself on the mother any more than the dependent twin is "forcing" his or her self on the independent one. The fact that they are already born has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you put forward; none of your prior logical propositions rested even slightly on a distinction between "born" and "unborn" individuals. In the post which you asked others to debunk, you said:

Those who do not want to get pregnant, have a variety of measures they can use to control whether they want to allow that to happen or not with a very high efficiency.

If a person recognizes, that they are unable to provide for a child for what ever reason and employs these measures but for what ever reason gets pregnant anyway, they are not entering this state willingly.

If it's against their will and it puts their body and life in danger, killing a fetus in it's early stage is no different then killing a criminal in self defense who attacks you in an alley since the fetus threatens their private property (their way of life, their body).
To clean it up a bit, this argument may fairly be summarized (I think you would agree) as follows:
1. The mother did not willingly become pregnant.
2. Her offspring is therefore an "intruder," living off her property without permission.
3. She is engaging in self-defense by killing it.

My analogy satisfies all of these conditions:
1. The independent twin did not willingly become conjoined to his or her dependent sibling.
2. The dependent twin is therefore an "intruder," living off his or her sibling's property without permission, according to your logic.
3. The independent twin is thus engaging in self-defense in killing his or her sibling, according to your logic.

Nowhere did you say, "It is self-defense to kill involuntary intruders, but only if they are unborn," and you compared the action to killing a mugger, indicating that no born/unborn dichotomy was at work in your argument. In order for a "born/unborn" distinction to come into play here, you would have to replace the basic premises underlying your stated position with a whole nother (largely unrelated) set. If you want to stick to the premises of your original argument, then in order to remain consistent, you will have to accept that in the case of conjoined twins, one of whom lives off the other's body, the independent twin has the "right" to kill the dependent one.

Otherwise, you will need to reconsider the significance of the "voluntary-versus-involuntary" dichotomy I have presented. To wit, the reason that this twin-killing is clearly unjustified lies in the fact that the dependent twin did not choose to live off his or her sibling's body- he or she was simply created that way. Likewise, the infant did not choose to entrench itself in the mother's uterus, but rather was thrust into that position involuntarily.

If I have deliberately broken into someone's house, that person may lawfully see me as an aggressor and take defensive action against me. If I have been involuntarily taken to their house, however, either by they themselves or by a third party, then I suspect you would recognize that it is patently absurd to suggest that their right of self-defense permits them to kill me for it. Likewise, if I have deliberately attacked you and begun sucking your blood, stealing your uterine fluids, and attempting to graft myself to you, you may lawfully engage in defensive violence to stop me from continuing to do so, but if I have simply been involuntarily born or created in a position of physical conjunction and dependence on your bodily fluids- especially as a result of your own actions, which is the case in nearly all pregnancies- I am clearly not a criminal, I have committed no aggression, and you are clearly engaged in aggression should you dismember me.

[hazek]

Actually if they are conjoined then it's one body, isn't it?

[MaxPower]

Actually if they are conjoined then it's one body, isn't it?
No, not necessarily; if the Discovery Health channel is among your subscriptions, you could watch some programs on this phenomenon. There are a number of different types of conjoined twins (joined at the hip, joined at the head, etc.), most of which do preserve the distinction between two different organisms and different bodies, but with some connective tissue- which is, in fact, comparable to the connection between a mother and an unborn child. Oftentimes, they will be surgically separated, but there are sometimes situations in which separation would kill them both, or else, as I have been referencing here (as I believe it, is in many ways, a dead-ringer analogy for pregnancy), in which one of the twins is smaller or has more deformities than the other, and is dependent on the stronger twin for survival, while the same is not true in reverse. I have seen at least one special about a couple of children who were joined at the head in the fashion pictured below, wherein one of them lacked fully-functioning vital systems and was literally living off the other.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/09/xinsrc_02205040910418903131823.jpg

Now, again, I consider this preceding analogy particularly potent because of how directly and relevantly it mirrors pregnancy as relates to the ethics of the "killing-your-human-'parasite'" theory, but I will also say that it is not the only relevant analogy- even the one I offered in the last paragraph of my preceding post fairly well demolishes the proposed justification of elective abortion, in my view.

[romeno182]

abortion has always existed and it will always exist. if you do it illegal there will be clandestine abortions and maybe the mother will die.. but i know you are very willing to sacrifice the abortive evil mother since for you she is not a living person..

seriously, did you know that 20% of all pregnancies get self-aborted from the body?
and the sanctity of life is bullshit, no life is sacred, and its not me saying that, its the nature saying that: in the past centuries there were pestilences who killed whole towns.. so much for the sanctity of life, but of course we should do everything to preserve life..

but we could make two different laws: one for the republicans, who believe in the sanctity of life, that when a woman has an abortion she gets punished for murder.. and another for democrats where abortion is perfectly legal..

i dont want your fascist sanctity of life get in my way,keep it for yourself thanx

[emazur]

abortion has always existed and it will always exist. if you do it illegal there will be clandestine abortions and maybe the mother will die.. but i know you are very willing to sacrifice the abortive evil mother since for you she is not a living person..
Yes, this is what will happen if abortion was banned. This is what did happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84


seriously, did you know that 20% of all pregnancies get self-aborted from the body?
Got a source? This is something I'd been thinking about before - if the anti-abortionists can make claims about what a woman can't do with her body, they may as well extend their argument that women must do certain things to their bodies in order to prevent a natural abortion.

[romeno182]

america just like europe has its own fringe of religious fundamentalists who will do everything to preserve the sanctity of life, they will kill for it when needed..

didnt look the movie because i not have audio in my pc


"All the time. If your body detects a flaw in the growth of the fetus, it autoaborts it. Some say as many as 3 out of every 4 pregnancies autoabort. If this happens early enough (and it usually does), you are not likely to even notice it.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_your_body_abort_its_self_with_out_you_knowing #ixzz1Azmc2OYt"

now i dont know if this is true.. ive heard before 20%, here they says 3 in 4

[dannno]

now i dont know if this is true.. ive heard before 20%, here they says 3 in 4

20% could be the reported figure, and the 75% could be the real number (since they stated that the mother is not likely to even notice it)

I agree with the sentiment of your post.

[hazek]

which is, in fact, comparable to the connection between a mother and an unborn child

Well in your mind, I tend to disagree and think it's nothing like a woman pregnant.


even the one I offered in the last paragraph of my preceding post fairly well demolishes the proposed justification of elective abortion, in my view.

Doesn't matter what the intention was that got you into that house, if you are there and you proceed to pose a threat and behave in that manner the owner is justified to protect himself.



So both your analogies are wrong in my mind but I do agree my analogy isn't the best one either. Maybe getting rid of cancer or some parasitic organism would be better.

[jmdrake]

Ya that's something I completely disagree with some of the eastern religions.. Tantric sex, on the other hand... that is awesome.

While you might find tantric sex more "awesome" that's got nothing to do with whether or not it's healthy. It's hard to argue with the 90 year old chi master who's in great health and attributes it in part to limiting his sexual activities. Right, wrong? I don't know. I haven't seen scientific proof either way.




Most girls seem to like it in general, they get more time to decide before the pressure of their natural biological clock kicks in.. so they get to try dating more guys first.. but then there is this weird balance they have between maintaining relationships with guys and keeping themselves 'pure'. Most guys won't stand for a girlfriend who isn't putting out, so if they want to date guys they almost have to.

Most guys seem to like it cause they get to at least attempt to try out as many girls as possible (as in sex, not dating).


For the record, I think your numbers on sex are wildly inflated. Less the half of all 15 - 19 year olds report ever having had sex. (That's right. Teen virgins are in the majority). That leaves a lot of more who may have had sex once or occasionally, but who aren't engaging in it on a regular basis.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

And as far as the girlfriend thing goes, if a guy really likes a girl he'll deal with the fact that she's "not putting out" one way or another, especially if this particular girl is more acceptable to his parents. (Yes, some kids actually care about that. Especially if their parents are rich and can right them out of the will for making the "wrong" choice).



If you're religious, then it can potentially be pretty difficult.


The vast majority of teens self report as being part of an organized religion.

http://www.youthandreligion.org/news/1-31-2002a.html



Well, specifically, unmarried couples who don't plan on having kids in the near future and are having sex.

Because some people who use birth control REALLY DON'T want to have kids, and birth control isn't always 100% effective, so it can lead to abortions (which, again, I'd prefer to see natural abortive remedies used within the first month of pregnancy)

Ummm....that's an entirely different point. So let's be clear so that we're on the same page:

1) Nobody in this thread is arguing against birth control.
2) While birth control isn't 100%, it is SO effective (especially using multiple methods) that people who are being responsible but still get pregnant does not come close to explaining the number of abortions in society.

Now here's a question. A woman who gets pregnant can avoid financial responsibility of the child either by abortion or adoption. (Really, with the adoption option the "it will ruin my financial future" argument is pretty moot). But what about the man? He can't "choose" to have an abortion. Should he be exempted in your opinion from child support if he offers to pay for an abortion and the woman chooses life?