Abortion.

[inked]

Here you go, Jonathan, proof I read the "other" side. Notice however that I do not shy away from an argument because of its location on the net... .

http://www.slate.com/id/2134452/

[inked]

And you thought it was only for China...

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=48930

a politico proposes to prevent gangs by forced abortion and contraception in the Netherlands (yes, that is a first world country!)

[Jonathan]

Bah. Forced abortion has not been legislated in the Netherlands (and maybe never will be). Forced abortion is not even supported by any Dutch political party. So excuse me if I don't find it alarming at all when one single politician makes this proposition.

The proposition stands out, which is why the media gives it more attention than it deserves.

[BeardofPants]

Because the media like to play to peoples' fears.

[Earniel]

What that article fails to mention is that Van den Anker only suggested forced abortion in her weblog, not officially. She's also a politician and official on city level, while abortion is a national matter.

So forgive me if I think any comparison of the Netherlands to China on this topic is wholy uncalled for and rather ignorant.

[inked]

Depends on whether big oaks from little acorns grow. Recall the discussions on mercy killing of infants last year? Oh, and that cartoon thingy?

[Earniel]

Try again when there actually is a big oak.

[inked]

go read the Muslim thread about acorns and oaks, Earniel !

[inked]

Alleges abortion rights threatened:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030302078.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
an intriguing comparison:

WaPo Wrings Hands Over Possibility that Americans May Not Get to Commit a 9/11 Everyday Against Their Own Children

Once again, I'm reminded of how much our decisions about life appear to be driven by aesthetics. We *say* that the great tragedy of 9/11 was the loss of innocent human life. But then we go on and kill *more* innocent human beings that died on 9/11 every frackin' day. Every day! And the WaPo gets its knickers in a twist that something may threaten that statistic. It would appear that what really bothers a great many of us is not the taking of human life, but the loud, public, violent and messy manner in which it was done v. the neat clean sterile and privatized manner of the abortuary "clinic".

http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/200...67439815207585

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

go read the Muslim thread about acorns and oaks, Earniel !

Watch it, please, Inked. Do NOT be rude to our Earniel. Thank you.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think he meant to be rude, but bossing mods around, especially the lovely Earniel, is what my Dad would call "a career-limiting move".

This is abortion-related comments from the Adoption thread (original post by RÃ*an here):

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nurv, what I was talking about was this: Bomb was upset over a bumper sticker that (roughly) read "considering abortion? talk it over - call xxxxxx", and there was also a pro-life sticker on the car. Bomb felt it was trickery of the worst sort, like they were deceiving "little girls" into calling a pro-life clinic under false pretenses. I didn't agree, and explained why - they were NOT saying they were an abortion clinic, and adoption is CERTAINLY one VERY valid option to a person considering an abortion, and I think the MORE information a person has before making a choice, the better. There are a LOT of resources out there for adoption/carrying to term that I think many women are NOT aware of.

Adoptioin is a very valid alternative to abortion, one that I am a very strong believer in.

However, I agree with Bomb that it is a misleading bumper sticker. It would have been more honest for the sticker to read, "Considering abortion? What about adoption? Call 1-800-number". This states the true purpose of the hotline, while promoting adoption in a positive light. I see no reason to surprise people with this option - it's valid and excellent, I'm sure people would be happy to hear about it. (I know I would if I was unexpectedly pregnant!)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I then pointed out that pro-life clinics do NOT have ANY financial incentive for a women to choose either way, but abortion clinics most definitely DO have a financial incentive for a women to choose abortion, and I wondered if that troubled anyone but me.

That is troublesome, and why I think abortions should be preformed by doctors in state-funded hospitals. (Further discussion should probably go to the abortion thread. )

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also I shared that in at least some (but my guess is all) abortion clinics, they do ultrasounds to establish gestational age, but WILL NOT show the woman the ultrasound - absolutely REFUSE to do so. I imagine it's because often when women see the ultrasound (which is a FACT), they decide to NOT abort - which means lost revenue for the abortion clinic. A cold, hard fact. I'm not saying everyone in the abortion industry is motivated by cash, but the fact remains that it is a cold, hard fact that if women see the FACT of the ultrasound info, then they often choose against abortion.

I'll take your word for this that this occurs. This further outlines why abortions should be done by doctors in state-funded hospitals. This way the doctor would have no incentive to preform or not preform the abortion, and if the mother requested to see the ultrasound nothing would really be stopping him/her.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Secondly, IRex shared about a pro-life clinic that he knew of that put up pictures of aborted fetuses on the walls, and was angry about that. I commented that IMO that is the exception rather than the rule, and that's certainly not true about the one that my friends work at. Also, I can provide PLENTY of horror stories about abortion clinics. But that raised a point in my mind - why object to the truth being given? Why object to more FACTUAL INFORMATION being given to a woman trying to make a very important decision? What those pictures show is TRUE, although gruesome. But why hide from reality? Why NOT show those pictures? I commented that IMO, many in the liberal side seem to want to DENY people truth and DENY people choices, contrary to their usual shrill cry. Seeing these pictures gives a woman MORE INFORMATION with which to make her choice, and it might lead her to choose adoption and be very glad she did. I say the more info, the better!

Well sure, they are true. But are they appropriate? Would you show a video of a couple having sex to a 21-year-old considering sex? (The hypothetical person is 21 so it's not illegal. )

Would you show bodies of children killed by landmines to someone considering joining the army? Again this is a truth (as in, it happens), but is it appropriate? I'd say, no.

I think graphic pictures are not appropriate (though maybe one would be appropriate, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line), because I think this truth is abused to get across a point. I think abortion advice should be truthful but objective. Bombarding someone with greusome pictures (which I have seen in anti-abortion displays) is not objective.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then I brought up the terrible shame of the state of abortion clinics in the US - they are currently unlicensed in the vast majority of the states - vet offices are FAR more regulated than abortion clinics; heck, manicurists are inspected more often than abortion clinics! The abortion industry fights and fights AGAINST licensing, and IMO that is a horrific shame. (This last part should probably go in the abortion thread, but the other two are related to adoption.)

I have problems with the current state of health-care in the USA. But your above quote outlines most strongly why I think abortions should be done in state-funded hospitals. (Sorry to beat you over the head with that, but that is my opinion to three of your quotes. )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

However, I agree with Bomb that it is a misleading bumper sticker. It would have been more honest for the sticker to read, "Considering abortion? What about adoption? Call 1-800-number". This states the true purpose of the hotline, while promoting adoption in a positive light. I see no reason to surprise people with this option - it's valid and excellent, I'm sure people would be happy to hear about it. (I know I would if I was unexpectedly pregnant!)

Yes, your version is valid, too. I don't have any problem with the original version, though, esp. since adoption isn't all a pro-life clinic would talk about. In the one in my town (and I imagine in most), they're about giving women information and resources, like providing baby clothing and diapers and cribs, information where they can stay during their pregnancies if they need a place to stay, providing post-abortion counseling, providing information on gestational stages of development, etc.

That is troublesome, and why I think abortions should be preformed by doctors in state-funded hospitals.

I'm glad you find it troublesome, and I"d like to hear from others!

I'll take your word for this that this occurs. This further outlines why abortions should be done by doctors in state-funded hospitals. This way the doctor would have no incentive to preform or not preform the abortion, and if the mother requested to see the ultrasound nothing would really be stopping him/her.

Same response as above.

Well sure, they are true. But are they appropriate? Would you show a video of a couple having sex to a 21-year-old considering sex? (The hypothetical person is 21 so it's not illegal. )

Would you show bodies of children killed by landmines to someone considering joining the army? Again this is a truth (as in, it happens), but is it appropriate? I'd say, no.

This was an interesting thought to think out - thanks for your reponses (again, I wonder why others aren't responding...)

As I was thinking through your response, here's what I came up with: I think it can appropriate when there is a decision to be made. For example, I think it might be appropriate to show bodies of children killed by landmines to a person who is considering joining the army if they think all the army does is bomb empty buildings and kill enemy soldiers and that there are no accidents where civilians are hurt. Maybe not a great example, but do you see what I'm thinking?

I think graphic pictures are not appropriate (though maybe one would be appropriate, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line), because I think this truth is abused to get across a point. I think abortion advice should be truthful but objective. Bombarding someone with greusome pictures (which I have seen in anti-abortion displays) is not objective.

But this is an interesting point - I've heard about college campuses where an anti-abortion display is set up next to an anti-war display. BOTH have gruesome pictures - BUT it's the anti-abortion display that gets the complaints. WHY?! I think it's because people know in their hearts that an abortion (at least a late-term one, which is legal in this country) kills a baby, and they don't like having that fact graphically illustrated. They PREFER less information on the subject, because it's more "comfortable" to them to not know what a full-term, aborted baby looks like.

I have problems with the current state of health-care in the USA. But your above quote outlines most strongly why I think abortions should be done in state-funded hospitals. (Sorry to beat you over the head with that, but that is my opinion to three of your quotes. )

I agree with the general idea behind that, that at least there would be no financial incentive towards abortion.

Any one else like to comment?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, your version is valid, too. I don't have any problem with the original version, though, esp. since adoption isn't all a pro-life clinic would talk about. In the one in my town (and I imagine in most), they're about giving women information and resources, like providing baby clothing and diapers and cribs, information where they can stay during their pregnancies if they need a place to stay, providing post-abortion counseling, providing information on gestational stages of development, etc.

Though I think the first one is sneaky, I'm not too bothered by it. I try to pick my battles.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This was an interesting thought to think out - thanks for your reponses (again, I wonder why others aren't responding...)

A lot of Mooters don't want to touch this thread with a twenty-foot Ent, which I totally respect. (Or do you mean people who already post in this thread?)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I was thinking through your response, here's what I came up with: I think it can appropriate when there is a decision to be made. For example, I think it might be appropriate to show bodies of children killed by landmines to a person who is considering joining the army if they think all the army does is bomb empty buildings and kill enemy soldiers and that there are no accidents where civilians are hurt. Maybe not a great example, but do you see what I'm thinking?

Your example is fine, though I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Do you mean that if someone had a misconception about, say, the army, it would be appropriate to show (true) greusome pictures?

To bring it back to abortion then, if someone was unexpectedly pregnant and considering all their options and asked their doctor about abortion, he/she would say "Well there are three types of abortions and if you chose this at this time, it would be done in the first trimester. It works like this blah blah blah. Here's a picture, I warn you it's graphic." *shows gross picture*

The above is something I don't have a problem with.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But this is an interesting point - I've heard about college campuses where an anti-abortion display is set up next to an anti-war display. BOTH have gruesome pictures - BUT it's the anti-abortion display that gets the complaints. WHY?! I think it's because people know in their hearts that an abortion (at least a late-term one, which is legal in this country) kills a baby, and they don't like having that fact graphically illustrated. They PREFER less information on the subject, because it's more "comfortable" to them to not know what a full-term, aborted baby looks like.

On our campus, both displays would be allowed. Both would receive complaints, but the anti-abortion would get more, because while almost all UBC students are anti-war, we're quite divided on the issue of abortion.
The complaints would all receive "you're allowed to set up a counter display 10 meters away blah blah freedom-of-speech-cakes" in response.

I have no comment about other universities. I bet you'd like mine though!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree with the general idea behind that, that at least there would be no financial incentive towards abortion.

Yes, plus there would be standardized and regulated abortion services. Everyone would win - the patient and the government. I believe that providing quality, state-funded health care is better for a country in the long run.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

(Or do you mean people who already post in this thread?)

yes, that's who I mean.

more later

[inked]

here's a wacky but nonethless seriously contended argument for abortion by Amnesty International:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052607.html

[hectorberlioz]

This needs to be heard....

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/ar...id=13-09-012-v

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Because the media like to play to peoples' fears.

They seem to be, in turn, playing our minds.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This needs to be heard....

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/ar...id=13-09-012-v

That's particularly interesting in view of the violence we're shown coming out of Iraq, in those newspapers.

[The Gaffer]

I would say they are not nearly as graphic, and that there is a moral imperative in war reporting to tell the truth because both sides strive so hard to hide it.

No-one denies that abortion is a grim and upsetting business, and that when surgical procedures are undertaken there is blood, gore and death. However, to use these kinds of images is to try to make the issue purely an emotional one, much in the same way that animal rights people trolley out the same old images of tortured monkeys to make the case against any type of animal testing.

Many anti-abortion arguments I've seen do not oppose abortion in the case of there being medical risk to the mother. So, unless I'm very much mistaken, these scenes would still happen in some circumstances even if they had their way. So, it's not that they are absolutely opposed to it, nor that they see the unborn child as having equal rights to its mother, they are just appalled at the extent of it, and think it should be prohibited except in specified circumstances.

What was that we were saying on the Iraq thread about how people try to distort complex arguments with vague generalisations and emotional language which appeals to the lowest common denominator?

I'd be interested to know what people with anti-abortion views think about the morning after pill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/ny...26morning.html

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I would say they are not nearly as graphic, and that there is a moral imperative in war reporting to tell the truth because both sides strive so hard to hide it.

No-one denies that abortion is a grim and upsetting business, and that when surgical procedures are undertaken there is blood, gore and death. However, to use these kinds of images is to try to make the issue purely an emotional one, much in the same way that animal rights people trolley out the same old images of tortured monkeys to make the case against any type of animal testing.

Gaffer, that is almost exactly the same argument used against the bloody pics of Iraq...it seems that what you say can be applied to the Iraq subject just as easily...

What the article says is true: they disguise the language of abortion to hide what it really is.

It's just like when you say to your child:Go potty. Thats the disguised version of: go and poop in the toilet.

[The Gaffer]

No, the purpose of showing war images is to clarify the issue; the purpose of showing aborted foetuses is to cloud the issue.

So what about this morning-after pill then?