| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 001: Abortion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:06 pm (863 Views) | |
| Etra | Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:58 am Post #41 |
|
Level 22
|
You use "depends on her for life" equivocally. A preborn is absolutely and completely dependent on its mother for life. An infant can at least eat, drink, and breathe on its own, a preborn cannot. And a baby does not become self-aware until it is about 18 months old. I can't find a study done by any researchers for it by googling but I've found plenty of parental advice boards that say about 18 months. Your last statement makes it sound like you're pro-choice, which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
Condom - 98% effective, 2% ineffective (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fscondom.htm). Birth control pill - 92-99.7% effective, about 5% ineffective (http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/thepill.htm). This is assuming that only one method is used at a time, although even if both were used together, I'm not sure how you would go about figuring out the effectiveness. I actually used a low estimate when I said 3%, so the estimate might be higher. And there's the margin of error, but I'm not sure how much. Probably would still remain in the 4 million range though.
Let me re-phrase then: unless your morals are shared by the majority of the population, you can't do anything to change the legality of abortion. And you're not going to be able to do that by arguing irrelevant points. Abortion is the killing of a preborn, infanticide is the killing of an infant. The largest difference between the two is that a preborn cannot survive without its mother, an infant can. If the mother dies, the preborn will die as well unless it's developed far enough to be able to survive in an artificial womb. And the point at which the preborn has developed enough to be able to do that coincides with the point that abortion becomes illegal. An infant does not need its mother to survive, it has other people that can care for it.
How would you create discipline? Force safe sex?
See above. 99.9% is a myth.
A child can survive in the care of its father or grandparents or uncles or aunts.
Your opinion is based on a myth. See above. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:12 am Post #42 |
|
Level 39
|
Read your own sources before you rely on them in an argument:
My apologies, 99.98 percent effective, it seems I undershot. Couple that with using the pill, (you multiply the percentage of a failure of the first by the percentage of the failure in the second and subtract from 1). Using your given 95%, that divides the probability of failure by 20 if both forms of contraceptive are used correctly: =99.999% prevention. QED |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:28 am Post #43 |
|
Level 5
|
Slavery was legal and ppl still cared about it eventually. ANd i'd think u'd care about being murdered no matter how long its been legal. i believe its a natural human...hell even animal instict to stay alive. and to view anything trying to kill u as wrong.
things get changed all the time. i.e. slavery.....
see now we've pushed back from you've been saying from it has a right to life at birth to it has a right to life when it can survive in an artificial womb. thats quite a bit more time. http://www.babycenter.com/400_when-is-the-...165352411040.bc from there it seems babies can be kept alive outside the mother around 6 months.
i dont really care about changing the legality of it. i think it being legal is the lesser of two evils, so teenage girls dont attempt illegal abortions that are way more dangerous and harmful. I just want to try to influence some ppl's morals themselves so that perhaps we can get fewer ppl to consider abortion. |
![]() |
|
| Xtreme | Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:58 am Post #44 |
|
The Creator
|
You can not force safe sex. It is my freedom to have unsafe sex. I for one refuse to use contraceptives as it inhibits the pleasure of the act. I do ask that the woman be on birth control however. If they refuse to do so, then oh well. That is her right as well. And I am definitely not being abstinent. The only time I will wear a condom is if it's a one time hook up for the fear of S.T.Ds, even though the woman I am with tend to be clean anyways. I do it as a precaution. But with an actual girlfriend, since the sex is quite frequent, I want it to be the best sex it could possibly be. And that requires that condoms not be used. And out of all of you, I think I may be the only one who has had to have an abortion before. It is not a good experience, but you have to understand it is something that you have to do. We had it done 1 month and 2 weeks after she was impregnated. It happened because I was wasted and did not use protection, and she was wasted as well and told me to "just finish inside", and me being trashed, I did so. Is that the type of baby you want to keep? One that was created from some drunk fun? Even if you force the use of contraceptives, there are many things that could go wrong. And if one of those went wrong, would you be "ok" if they aborted the unwanted baby then? Who cares if the condom broke. Who cares if she forget to take her pill that day. It is still an accident just as any other time, and if you are not prepared to take care of a baby, then it should be taken care of at a clinic for $500. Not to mention, birth control and condoms can be expensive at times, depending on how often you have sex. When I was younger, at the age of 16, I did use condoms with my girlfriend. They were $6 for a pack of 3. I am sure there are some places you can get them for free, but none that I know of around here, and I am sure they would not let me take alot of them. Anyways, at the time, I was having sex more than 3 times a day. That means I was spending $6-$12 dollars a day on something I don't even need. At the age of 16, that is a lot of money, and more expensive then picking up smoking and finishing 2 packs of cigarettes a day. |
![]() |
|
| MaKsU | Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:02 pm Post #45 |
|
Level 11
|
3x a day? did u have sex at school or something? |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:38 pm Post #46 |
|
Level 22
|
Read all of the bullets, not just one.
"two of every 100 couples" is 2%, 0.02 is 2%, if "98 percent of women relying on male condoms will remain pregnancy free" then 2% will become pregnant even with the use of a male condom. Also, I forgot to factor in two things when I calculated that estimate: age distribution and sexual activity. Previously, I had included all women in the calculation but that's wrong. Now I only included the women from age 15-29 for a total of 28,687,649 (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html). And then I had not taken into account how often people have sex. I'd guess women from that age range would have an average of having sex 2 times per week. The calculation before used 1 time per year. The population 28,687,649 * 0.001 possibility of ineffective condom and pill (Even though I doubt both are used together very often) * 96(2 weeks * 4 weeks per month * 12 months per year) = 2,754,014. So according to the numbers, Tonic's conjecture about the motivation of abortion being used as another method of birth control might have been right. Still doesn't make adoption a feasible means of preventing abortion though.
Don't think you can equate slavery and abortion. And it's a bit circular to say abortion is murder, then justify that by saying murder is wrong so abortion must be wrong.
Abortion becomes illegal during the third trimester; 6 months.
What are you trying to argue then? Abortion is legal from the time of conception up to the end of the second trimester. After that, a pregnant woman loses her option to abort. From what you've been saying, it seems that you did not know that. |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:08 pm Post #47 |
|
Level 5
|
I've been trying to argue against any of your lines that go along something like the one above. From everything you've been saying, the child from conception (till a couple years after birth apparentally) (actually you've also said there is no right to life, and that it's a privilege) has no right to life. And that the only reason 3rd trimester abortions are "wrong" to you seems to be the fact that our government says it's illegal and not because its inherently wrong in itself.
Here i was not trying to equate abortion and slavery. I was just arguing against Xtreme's lines trying to show that even if murder was legal since the beginning of time, people would still care.
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" The justices themselves in the case did not try to argue about whether or not abortion is murder. They were just doing their job and seeing if the constitution applied to the preborn at which they concluded they did not. They also were looking at rights to privacy of women and pregnancy. They somehow concluded that abortion falls under privacy and that's it. |
![]() |
|
| Xtreme | Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:20 am Post #48 |
|
The Creator
|
A couple times. Ask anyone who was in lXSl. I practically lived at my gfs house at the time. I even had bots up on her computer 24/7 that she didn't know about because I had 56k at the time and couldn't load ops all the time. And when you are 16, your libido does not go down. At least for the 16 year olds who do actually get some action. I am not saying 3x a day everyday. But a good 2 days out of the weekdays, and then all weekend, yes. Even more so on the weekends. |
![]() |
|
| noob | Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:48 am Post #49 |
|
Level 21
|
Sorry but i started lookin@the thread late and mb if i repeat something thats been said, but with that in mind: I personally feel like people who do things like risk pregnancy with unportected sex should have to face the music and be responsible for their actions should that pregnancy occur. HOWEVER, i don't feel that: A: the child should be forced to be born into a shitty situation, with one or both parents befing forced to stop school early and deal with crappy low paying jobs leading to commonly a poor upbringing and underpriviledged childhood. Often too the children are neglected or left home unsupervised because both parents need to work and many times low qualified jobs don't offer high quality benefits or daycare. This also leads to the child screwing up their life by falling into the wrong crowd etc. B. Should the child be put up adoption, lending the chance that he/she will grow up in a poorly regulated foster care system (in most states) and run the risk of being moved around alot etc. C. I CERTAINLY don't think it is the government's job to deny people the ability to abort. They should have the right to fix their mistake by paying for a safe medical operation and keep another child from going into the spiral of poverty which often time lends itself to more poverty in future generations of the family. I mean, we give people medication for STD's, which is basically a different result for the same mistake, should we make people live with crabs and the clap completely untreated? For the people who think it is murder, well honestly i simply disagree with you on that point. I, myslef, am firmly against the death penalty but i don't consider aborting before whatever trimester (or amount of weeks) it currently is to be murder. I think there is a huge difference and abortion simply doesnt eat at my concience, sorry. P.S. In no way am i saying the above is what will happen to everychild, however is certainly a high enough frequency to not dismiss it by being just random "what-if" scenarios. |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:41 am Post #50 |
|
Level 22
|
P1: To be a person requires self-awareness. P2: Preborns are not self-aware. C1: Preborns are not persons./Preborns are non-persons. P3: A person has privilegesm i.e. "right" to life, and a non-person does not. C2: Preborns do not have privileges. P4: It is not illegal to kill a non-person. C3: It is not illegal to kill a preborn. You're trying to dispute C3 by saying C1 and C2 are wrong. Fine. What you aren't doing is proving any of the premises supporting those conclusions to be wrong. The best way to prove a conclusion to be false is to prove a premise to be false. And this is an inductive argument, meaning that even if the premises are true, the conclusions are not necessarily true, only highly probable. So I can't say that due to a seemingly good argument, abortion is not illegal. And I do think the government is right to make third trimester abortions illegal because of the biological dependency reason I gave before.
Slavery was legal, people started questioning its morality, and slavery became illegal. Abortion is legal, people started questioning its morality, so abortion should become illegal? That's what I thought you were trying to say and that's why I said you shouldn't try to equate slavery and abortion.
That sounds like an argument for pro-choice, not pro-life like I thought you were doing. |
![]() |
|
| Lintendo | Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:27 am Post #51 |
|
Level 5
|
well i believe this topic is pretty much exhausted. the only thing i have left to say is that ur whole premises conclusion arguement i'd just try to provide the infant/comatose counterexample. those ppl also are not self aware, yet are still considered people. some philosopher defines personhood as having a future like ours. Marquis i think. Anyways, i dont think theres anymore i can really say, i will probably just be reading if there are more posts. |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:48 pm Post #52 |
|
Level 22
|
Topic will be closed on Monday, November 24th. |
![]() |
|
| LockeD | Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:18 pm Post #53 |
|
Cry to me Newbs
|
I wonder If I'm smart enough to post in this topic o.O |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:52 am Post #54 |
|
Level 23
|
Zomg success! On a more serious note, I'll be posting my final say tomorrow I guess... |
![]() |
|
| Etra | Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:29 am Post #55 |
|
Level 22
|
You don't have to be "smart" to state your opinion on a topic. Although it would be smart to at least have some knowledge about both sides of the issue.
Me too! Also, I heard an interesting argument against both life and choice (I think): Most people, regardless of their opinion on abortion, believe that birth control should be used when having sex. But birth control is the prevention of an unwanted child, just as abortion is the prevention of an unwanted child. If abortion is illegal, why shouldn't birth control be? Can you prove that the prevention of sperm reaching the egg is different than the removal of a fertilized egg? Is a zygote different than a child? |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:54 pm Post #56 |
|
The Mambo King
|
The difference is that the sperm and the egg prior to fertilization are genetically identical to the father and mother respectively, while the fertilized egg is already genetically distinct from both the mother and the father. The genetic blueprints for a potential human being are already laid down at that point. That's as specific as I'm going to get at the moment. I'm tired. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |





3:09 PM Jul 11