Human Rights

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Yes, SunfallE, because what I need is an unsubstantiated, intangible pity party for rape victims based off of inaccurate caricatures of my statements. What you have "given" is the fact that not a single question that I ask on this issue is answered.




You have misunderstood, Timechaser. I am not pleading the case of the slippery slope. I am using a compare/contrast to illustrate how a strictly emotional appeal isn't justification for an action. Though I think Teresa was talking about re-defining what is human in terms of capability and status, which is something I am against.


Anyway, I am not one of those extremes. Though I do not condone abortions in cases of rape, I am more than happy to condone abortions in cases of various medical reasons (horrible deformity and inability to survive of the child, toxic/ectopic pregnancies, that kind of stuff). Then, you are not talking about personal comfort through choice. You are talking about serious medical conditions, in which an abortion is the "lesser of two evils".

Incest I am undecided on.


It isn't abortions themselves that cause the breakdown. The issue is the emotional appeal being substantial enough to be law. If you say that someone being emotionally distraught is reason enough for a law that is not based on circumstance, then you open the floodgate for baseless justification. The example I use here is the case where a woman wants an abortion because her child will have a predicted astrological sign that opposes hers. Now, if you go off of emotionally distraught causes from viable circumstances, then it is those circumstances themselves that allow the case, and not the emotion itself.


Now, I still want an example of how "individual cases" can be taken into account as the right in general, but I raised a question in my head:

[indent]what are these original cases about?[/indent]

If you plead the case of someone who has a psychological condition, then is it not that condition which legalizes the abortion, and not the rape itself? If it is a pregnancy from an uncle, then is this not about incest? If it is a pregnancy in a woman who would be unable to carry a child (such as an adolescent herself), then would this not be a case of medical conditions?


Also, where is this "generally treating rape victims the same" thing come from? People keep making this statement, but I have not seen where I have said that every rape victim is the same. I have said that rape doesn't justify the abortion, and I have given more to this statement than just "blanket generalizations about the victims".

[James]

[quote]Anyway, the statement that I have heard is that "cases are different". This, although an obvious given, has very little bearing on the issue. If you go into personal instances, you opt out of logical statements and rights, and then go toward personal feelings on the issue.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This is why various Government programs have a thing called "means testing". There are many cases where individual circumstances must be assessed in order to reach a determination.

By suggesting that the individual circumstances surrounding each case of rape are irrelevant, you are implying that the specifics of each case are unimportant.

You may be against abortion in all circumstances and as I've repeatedly said, this is fine. That's your opinion and you're most welcome to it.

However, it is blatantly unrealistic to suggest or imply that individual circumstances don't matter in general. Of course they do; if they didn't, victims of rape would all receive identical treatment from medical professionals. Obviously each case is very different and each person is unique. Understanding that is necessary to begin making any progress with victims.[/font]

[quote]The slippery slope is a fallacy. A cannot = B and = C and = D at the same time. You have misunderstood my post: I said "That right" to her own body. Not "rights in general". There is a difference, particularly that the right of abortion is the right in question of this thread. We can't assume this right if we are going to debate it.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The slippery slope is a fallacy? But you yourself are arguing on this basis.

On the one hand, you're saying that there's a key difference between "the right to abortion" and "rights in general". At the same time you're applying blanket armchair psychology to all rape victims, without regard to exceptions or unique cases.

So you are essentially operating on two sets of logic simultaneously, both of which are self-contradictory.

Of course, this allows you to make one set of rules on one issue and then to disregard those principles on other issues. I think this is why so many people here are finding your justifications inconsistent - it's not that you're "wrong" to be pro-life, it's that your frequent blanket assertions about entire groups of people are highly inappropriate.[/font]

[quote]Raised from nowhere? Do you not realize that the emotional aspect sympathizing with rape victims is almost the entire argument for maintaining the legality of abortions in those instances?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yes, raised from nowhere. I don't think the case has been made so far that it's about a raw emotional issue - it's really about medical recovery. Recovering from trauma is a medical issue bit it's also certainly emotional. I would argue that the two are intertwined.

You can't summarily reject emotion from the discussion anyway. Besides, much of your position is based on personal value judgments! That's no different from someone else having a personal emotional point of view. Your view is no more relevant and no more acceptable than anyone else's.[/font]

[quote]Again, I am fighting against shadows. Please tell me where I have done this.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You're not fighting against shadows, you are either ignoring people's comments or you're glossing over them.

There have been numerous, exhaustive examples of where you've done this throughout the discussion. If you aren't going to bother to pay attention to what people are saying, then don't expect everyone else to provide a roadmap to your own comments.[/font]

[quote]Yes, it does. Otherwise, the statement would be completely unrelated to the topic at hand, unsubstantiated in your own mind, and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever in its presence. Since you have made such a statement, you imply a claim. That is all there is to it.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Ugh. Do I really have to go through a basic English lesson here?

As I said, a child being an ever-present reminder of an event doesn't mean that if the child didn't exist, the victim would "forget" the incident. The victim would simply not be constantly reminded of it - that doesn't mean they'd forget it in the first place.

I hope this makes sense. Clearly, others in this thread have understood it. It's not rocket science. [/font]

[quote]Anyway, the emotional aspect becomes irrelevant in regards to law, because otherwise you wouldn't have any order. You could claim that because someone broke your television, that it is worthy of the death penalty because you loved your television so much, and that it affected you so much that they should be killed for it under the same grounds that you claim that a woman who was raped should be allowed to abort the baby only because she feels that way about it.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I know what you're saying, but what I'm telling you is that your attitude towards rape is entirely flippant and dismissive. I mean, you're trying to create an analogy between rape (a horrific crime that has a permanent negative impact on victims) to the theft of a possession (which isn't even comparable by any measure - even in a strictly legal sense).

And this is the core problem I have with what has been said so far. You can argue on a completely legal basis, sure. But if you're going to do that, don't start making comparisons that aren't even legally comparable.[/font]

[quote]The emotional appeal is ultimately arbitrary. You have to go off of the legal standard if you want to maintain the system. Whether or not someone minds something is irrelevant to whether or not a law is broken, or a right exists.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, that's fine. Instead of dismissing rape and putting it in general terms as you did earlier, you would have been better off to make this simple statement and leave it at that. This makes a lot more sense and sounds a lot more reasonable.

However, I would personally argue that emotion matters, especially as it relates to a victim's ability to recover after an attack.

For example, let's look at a situation where someone was assaulted in the street.

The victim may want revenge against the assailant and may wish to see the harshest penalty possible, for no other reason than that they are angry.

The judge, however, has to make a [i]legal[/i] decision - what are the attacker's prior charges? Are there any? If this is a first offense, the judge may impose a lighter sentence. And the judge will only impose a sentence allowed by sentencing guidelines anyway.

So on the surface, yes, the "emotion" of the victim doesn't matter.

[i]However[/i], that isn't all there is to it.

Let's say the assailant simply pushed someone in the street, but when that person fell over, they hit their head on the sidewalk and died immediately.

On the surface, the assailant's attack is minimal - legally speaking it may not even require jail time. The assailant didn't intend to kill the victim.

However, because a minor attack resulted in death, the assailant may be convicted of manslaughter rather than regular assault. And this would bring with it very different penalties.

Do you see what I'm saying? You can make the blanket case that "anyone who pushes someone else in the street should get a warning and a fine". And that sounds great. But what you don't take into account are the many different circumstances and results of that action. The law must (and does) reflect these important variances.

If it didn't, we'd have mandatory sentencing for every single crime, regardless of circumstances.

So you're telling me that individual circumstances don't matter. I'm telling you that they do and that they shouldn't be dismissed.

Whether this justifies abortion or not is [i]not[/i] what I'm debating with you. That's now almost a side-issue. I'm getting at what I perceive as the core flaws in the logic you are applying to your view.[/font]

[quote]It isn't oversimplified. It is exactly how it is, and it cannot be any other way, due to the laws of thought. This system is binary: either the right exists or it doesn't exist. Either A = A, or A = B. You cannot have A = A sometimes, or A = B sometimes.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Unfortunately, CS, the world isn't that black and white. Refer to my previous comment about sentencing as an illustration of this.[/font]

[quote]Claiming a shadow that "it might exist" or "it is too simple" doesn't accomplish anything. Can you please tell me how it is that abortions are somehow O.K. in one rape case but not another due to the emotional impact that the mother has? Can you tell me how it is that endorsing abortions in instances of rape doesn't say that the child doesn't have a right to exist in contrast to endorsing any other method to resolve the personal issues? Is this based in logic at all, or is this just out of personal feeling?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure how else I can continue to exhaustively talk this out, CS. You seem to be drawing conclusions that I'm simply not making.

I am not telling you that abortion is or isn't justified in different rape cases. I have a personal view on that and I don't intend to debate it with you. Others will debate that and I'm happy for them to do so.

My point is simply - and was always - that your armchair psychology is painfully simplistic and fails to acknowledge the depth of the problem (regarding rape). Your vacuous assertions about which aspects of giving birth are worse for the mother are also horribly naive and they make assumptions based on absolutely no objective evidence.

If you want to know what aspects of childbirth are most difficult for rape victims, then you should either talk to a range of women about birth...or actually speak to people [i]in addition[/i] to your mother. What you will see is that there are a range of views and experiences out there - far more than you can imagine.[/font]

[quote]I, myself, am not hesitant to tell people how they should recover. If I find that a rape victim has decided to go into cutting herself and torturing animals in order to deal with emotional scars, for example, am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut about this behavior because of the way she feels?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So you're going to take it upon yourself to council someone in horrible pain and emotional trauma when you are completely unqualified to do so? That's really generous of you.

Perhaps, instead of making these infinitely wise declarations about what people should or shouldn't do, you could show some compassion and maybe even suggest that the person seeks professional support.

I am simply not insensitive enough to walk up to a rape victim and try to tell them that I know best. I couldn't even begin to imagine their state of mind and I'm certainly not a doctor. [/font]

[quote]My mother and I have the same position. If you are debating against me, you are vicariously debating with my mother; a rape victim who has much more "credibility" than me on the issue.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No, CS! To use your logic, I'm [i]only[/i] debating with A or B - you or your mother. There's no in between! :catgirl:

See what I mean? Life isn't quite that simple.

Your views are obviously inherited from your mother. That's fine. But I'm not debating with her, I'm debating with you. Just because you agree on an issue doesn't mean that you shouldn't have your own reasons for having a position.

You are accountable for the things you say and so am I. If you are debating with me, you are debating with me - I do not speak for anyone else and nobody else speaks for me.[/font]

[quote]Individual cases of personal feelings have little bearing on the right. Because someone is unhappy with something isn't justification for change. Either the right exists, or it does not exist.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Right - and that's fine. That is your opinion.

My only suggestion is that when voicing your opinion, you try not to trivialize serious issues like rape. That's all I would say about it.[/font]

[quote]I am getting an argument from ignorance: Saying that I am somehow incorrect because "I don't know" and there are cases where it would somehow be allowed. This has little to do with my question on the fact (should the emotional suffering of the woman justify the abortion?), which is a question that doesn't require the particular instances.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You aren't getting an argument from ignorance - at least no more than what you're putting out there. You continually make value judgments that apparently come from nowhere other than your own mind. It's one thing to have a view (as we all do), but it's another thing to try to pass of laughably simplistic medical analysis as some kind of empirical fact. This point never seems to be addressed.

Besides, people are answering your question - clearly there are people here who think that abortion is justified in some cases. But when they assert that view, you're then trying to tell them that they're either a) wrong, b) ignorant or c) "just don't know".

So you are doing to others what you're accusing them of doing to you. It's hypocritical at best and it doesn't help the debate at all.[/font]

[quote]"Oh, normally murder isn't lawful, but since my nephew was robbed and he REALLY liked his videogames, he has a right to kill that other individual. How dare you try to tell him what solution is best! You can never understand what it is like to have your favorite possession taken away from you!"[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Again, CS, you're making a totally ridiculous comparison here.

Your frequent analogy of [i]sexual violence[/i] to [i]theft of a possession[/i] is absolutely inappropriate.

Yes, you're making a basic logical argument. But in doing so, you're demonstrating your ignorance about the absolute seriousness of sexual violence.

You're also contradicting your own argument; you say that this should all be based on a simple legal formula that something is right or wrong. But you either ignore or aren't aware of the fact that the law itself recognizes individual cases and "shades of gray". This is precisely why there are different degrees of murder for example. It's also why we have a thing called "mitigating circumstances".

So if you want to argue your point on a pure legal basis, you also need to understand the way law works and the fact that punishments are often intrinsically tied to personal circumstance. That is why there are trials in the first place - not just to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - but to allow a court to make a determination based on all of the evidence and any mitigating factors that are involved.

As I said earlier, if all crimes were just a "yes/no" situation, there wouldn't be any need to have varying guidelines or mitigating factors - because in your world, there are no mitigating factors, no relevant individual circumstances and every crime or act is comparable on a completely equal basis.[/font]

[quote]Anyway, I am not one of those extremes. Though I do not condone abortions in cases of rape, I am more than happy to condone abortions in cases of various medical reasons (horrible deformity and inability to survive of the child, toxic/ectopic pregnancies, that kind of stuff). Then, you are not talking about personal comfort through choice. You are talking about serious medical conditions, in which an abortion is the "lesser of two evils".

Incest I am undecided on.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Right, so, maybe this should be the final word on the debate then, lol.

After all you've been telling us about how it's a yes/no, black/white situation and that individual circumstances are irrelevant... you're now telling us that there are some exceptions. Thank you. You've just made the point that almost everyone here has been trying to make.

When discussing rape, nobody here is talking about "personal comfort" as you so quaintly put it. We are talking about serious physical and psychological factors that are not irrelevant. Many of these would certainly fall under the medical category.[/font]

[quote]If you plead the case of someone who has a psychological condition, then is it not that condition which legalizes the abortion, and not the rape itself? If it is a pregnancy from an uncle, then is this not about incest? If it is a pregnancy in a woman who would be unable to carry a child (such as an adolescent herself), then would this not be a case of medical conditions?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Right, exactly. You don't seem to be making the connection here, CS.

What you're doing here is talking semantics. Yes, it's a psychological condition that legalizes the abortion - [i]but the psychological condition is caused by the rape![/i]

Everyone here has been trying to make this point to you.[/font]

[quote]What you have "given" is the fact that not a single question that I ask on this issue is answered. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's just rude. People are regularly answering your questions and responding to you.

If you're going to summarily dismiss everybody's responses (as you've dismissed almost anything you disagree with as a "fallacy"), then you simply should not be debating this topic or any other.

I suggest you keep that in mind. People are showing you respect by taking the time to respond to you like this, even though they probably have better things to do. You should show a little respect in return by acknowledging this and not complaining that nobody is answering your questions.[/font]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"][quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]For the case where the life of the mother is in danger: given our current medical advancement and ability to frustrated Death's advances at almost every turn (save age and a few others), how often is this scenario actually going to happen? (If someone has some current stats, I'd love to see them, since I know basically nothing of current pregnancy danger-rates.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]This is not my field (obviously) however my understanding is that most complications are treatable, except for in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the start of new life implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) [I]instead[/I] of on the wall of the uterus. As it grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood loss and probably death.

In these cases, my understanding is that there is no way to save the child’s life. Based on this article here: [URL="http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3212.htm"][U]Ectopic Pregnacy[/U][/URL] 2% of all pregnancies will be this type. The research on it isn't recent, but as of 1992, that meant over 100,000 pregnancies a year. I'm sure by now the number is higher by virtue of the population being greater. Anyway...

[CENTER]--------------------[/CENTER]
I see the ignorance continues with the blanket attempt to dismiss the seriousness of sexual assault by claiming the problem is the victim’s emotional state. This ignores the violent criminal aspect of rape, and the trauma that causes the severe emotional distress in the first place, in order to dismiss it as a genuine problem.

Let’s not forget that PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder) is a genuine medical condition brought on after a terrifying ordeal that involved physical harm or the threat of physical harm. Incidents such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, abuse, accidents, natural disasters and [I]rape[/I] are traumatic events that can trigger it.

To be completely clear here, PTSD is the only diagnostic category in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders"][U]DSM[/U][/URL] that is based on etiology. In order for a person to be diagnosed with PTSD, there has to have been a traumatic event that triggered it.

When identifying trauma and it adaptive symptoms (how the person copes with it), It is more useful to ask "What HAPPENED to this person" rather than "what is WRONG with this person."

Focusing on the concept that it is the victim’s emotions that is the problem completely ignores what caused those emotions in the first place, as James already explained. This is not a normal emotional state and working with someone to find the best treatment to restore a more healthy state isn’t something that can be decided with blanket statements that treat all cases as identical.

Rather it is the subjective experience of the events that constitutes the trauma. In other words, trauma is defined by the survivor since each experience will vary as to the actual events involved. Two people could experience the same or similar event and one might be traumatized while the other is not. It simply is not possible to make blanket generalizations like “A is traumatic for all who experience it” or “B is not traumatic because no one was physically hurt.”

A person who has lived through such an event will most likely never feel as if the event didn’t happen. However the distressing effects of PTSD are completely treatable. It depends on the circumstances and what happened. As I said before, attempting to apply your beliefs or moral values when treating someone has no place here. It must be done on a case by case basis since the treatment that will work the best will vary. A lot.

This isn’t someone who messed up or got pregnant because they forgot to use protection. This is someone who had that choice violently made for them. Another point to consider is that it’s estimated that 60% of assaults are not reported. Source: [URL="http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates"][U]RAINN[/U][/URL]

This opens up the possibility of the number of pregnancies resulting from rape being twice what I quoted earlier, 6000 a year instead of 3000. So once again, attempting to sweep that many people under the rug just because it's considered a small percentage is completely absurd.

To make abortion illegal in this type of situation completely ignores the reality that there [I]will[/I] be situations where abortion [I]will be[/I] one of the best options to help the victim recover. In closing, I find the flippant disregard for the seriousness of this type of trauma highly inappropriate, insensitive and downright ignorant. And since James already covered that part as well, I'm going to leave it at that.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=Indi][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]This is not my field (obviously) however my understanding is that most complications are treatable, except for in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the start of new life implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) [I]instead[/I] of on the wall of the uterus. As it grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood loss and probably death.

In these cases, my understanding is that there is no way to save the child?s life. Based on this article here: [URL="http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3212.htm"][U]Ectopic Pregnacy[/U][/URL] 2% of all pregnancies will be this type. The research on it isn't recent, but as of 1992, that meant over 100,000 pregnancies a year. I'm sure by now the number is higher by virtue of the population being greater.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Right, right. And from what I've just read, it seems that the only way to save the mother is to stop the growth of the embryo at that point.

But since, as you pointed out, the embryo has basically no chance to survive anyway, there doesn't seem to be a point in squabbling over the ethics of abortion in that case. The only options there are either a quick termination and save the mother, or a wait for a natural termination which would probably be fatal to the mother.

However, the concept of "saving the child at the cost of the mother" is still a risky subject, and is really a decision [I]no one else[/I] can ethically make?not even the father. Basically, the mother then says "I want to live" or "I want my child to live", and that decision is final and binding on the doctor unless they can find a way to save both.

The reason I asked is because, like I said, I don't know how often situations like that arise. It seems to me that ectopic pregnancies are pretty much cut-and-dried as far as the child's survival, so that seems an easy decision. I'm wondering more about instances where you have the either/or, since I honestly don't know much of anything.[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]However, the concept of "saving the child at the cost of the mother" is still a risky subject, and is really a decision [I]no one else[/I] can ethically make?not even the father. Basically, the mother then says "I want to live" or "I want my child to live", and that decision is final and binding on the doctor unless they can find a way to save both.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

What about cases in which the mother is incapacitated and cannot make the decision? It will pretty much go to the father in those cases.

If my wife/girlfriend were in such a situation, and the decision was up to me, I would certainly feel anguish over having to choose, but I would still choose to save my partner.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I sat down, thought about what was going on a bit, and I think I know where this “Pushing Generalizatins” thing comes from.

Earlier I made statements about how statistics do not reflect the ideal that people pushed onto after-rape abortions. There is one very key reason why this is done: because those ideals would be complete justification towards allowing abortions IF they were true.

After all, it it was proven that, in the vast majority of cases, the woman who aborts a rape-conceived baby did better in her own life, you could make a statement about this as grounds to allow abortions, along with the other logical reasons for allowing abortions for rape victims (rights to her own body, rights to become pregnant, ect). This would bring the issue to cease being about personal rights, but then be about medical issues regarding the psychological health of the mother. This is, indeed, grounds for allowing an abortion.


My claim wasn’t that all women don’t have deepened emtional scars (though I heavily question if it ever happens at all. More on that later). My statement is that the statistics do not reflect the claim of absolute psychological damage, therefore the condition of the emotional problems that a woman faces is not grounds for allowing abortions. Any further appeal to emotions then becomes baseless, or it is irrelevant in question to the practice.

As I said to TimeChaser:

[quote]Now, if you go off of emotionally distraught causes from viable circumstances, then it is those circumstances themselves that allow the case, and not the emotion itself.

...snip...

If you plead the case of someone who has a psychological condition, then is it not that condition which legalizes the abortion, and not the rape itself? If it is a pregnancy from an uncle, then is this not about incest? If it is a pregnancy in a woman who would be unable to carry a child (such as an adolescent herself), then would this not be a case of medical conditions?[/quote]


Anyway, on the factor that I constantly question: Do abortions help the women who were raped? The most recent study:

[url]http://www.afterabortion.org/news/Victims.html[/url]

Says no, they don’t. Exceptions to this, they just weren’t present. It was the consensus that abortion was more harmful than helpful. This is a more recent study of 192 women that has made its way into print (itis a full-scale book). It is a more recent study, published in 2000. BTW, please do read the link.

My statements on this issue, they aren’t generalizations at all. They are observed from anecdote evidence and from statistics. As to why this happens, the same website also provided a cited argument on this (no, you don’ thave to read this):

[url]http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html[/url]

Do not feel for the “poor raped women who want an abortion for no other reason” that I am apparently dooming to a miserable fate, because, frankly, they don’t exist. Statistically, it is better for the woman to have the child, even if she was misguided or thinks she wants an abortion during the present. I don’t mean a general average, either. I mean nearly 100% occurrence. Those other theoretical ones that would be harmed by it, they have tertiary factors contributing to their problem that aren’t enough to justify rape spawned abortions on its own.

All these claims about me being unrealistic, impossible, imposing on fact, a slippery slope, not only were all of those completely unfounded and fallacious "whining" on the part of my opposition (which refused to point out any specific instances), but it also accomplish very little in regards to the statements I make or the questions I ask.

If you are claiming that it is not through these tertiary conditions (which are justified in their own right outside of rape), then you are claiming that it is only the emotional feeling that will justify abortion, and to this I have constantly questioned and undermined. The fact is, this is illogical, impossible to gauge, impossible to prove, and of no value in regards to the logic behind legalizing [i]any[/i] law [i]if it were true[/i]. The fact is that abortion has been scientifically demonstrated to not be of any substantial relief for the rape victims, and that there are countless other proven, more effective treatments for rape victims that do not require the sacrifice of the child at all.

The hypothetical few who would benefit from abortions, their mere possible existence does not suddenly make it O.K. to allow abortions in all instances. You must do something more than just say "Nuh uh! Not everyone is like that, so it's O.K. for everyone!". You must do more than say "But they feel bad about it!". You must do more than say "You shouldn't impose your ideas on someone else". The right either exists, or it does not exist.

The burden of proof is on you now (SunfallE, James, Indi, ect). Either provide proof of your claims, or accept the evidence that I have provided and abandon this idea of complete unrelated individuality of rape incidences somehow makes things O.K. due to a fear of "generalizing".

[indent]”It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become." ~Julie Makimaa, who was conceived in rape [/indent]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='TimeChaser']What about cases in which the mother is incapacitated and cannot make the decision?[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]What if there were no hypothetical situations? What then?

I am not really concerned with any "what-if" statements, because those are essentially [I]specific[/I] cases that have to be dealt with on a [I]specific[/I] basis and cannot in clear conscience be legislated. I bring up this angle because it occurs to me that, given our level of technological and medical advancement, the cases where the lives of both mother and child are threatened but only one can be saved are very few and very far between. The debate over this concept, then, seems to me to be a highly Medieval argument, where it was common for mothers to die in childbirth.

I'd rather operate on an "if-then" basis with this deal; as in, [I]if[/I] the situation arises, [I]then[/I] you deal with it, instead of attempting to make a law to cover every possible instance and so tie your hands when something relatively simple comes up. Debates like this are why cases spend years in litigation, why convicted murderers can appeal endlessly instead of being summarily dealt with.

So let me reiterate my position.

In general, I am against abortion as a practice for simply removing an unwanted child. (It's a responsibility thing.) However, in the cases of rape victims or endangered mothers (which I just went through wondering how rare the latter is), I support the practice as an |[I]option[/I]. Not a mandate, not outlawed, but an [I]option[/I] to be taken under [I]serious and careful[/I] consideration.


Now then. The other thing you remarked on?the father needing to decide in the [I][U]rare[/U][/I] case of incapacitation (again my point rises)?I'm not so sure I could make that decision so instantly. On the one hand, I have the life of someone dear to me, who is tangible and known. On the other, I have a life I know nothing about, which I have the option to love and mold with my own life. The lives of both are equally priceless.

Choosing the death of either would be hell.[/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"][quote name='Crimson Spider']The burden of proof is on you now (SunfallE, James, Indi, ect). Either provide proof of your claims, or accept the evidence that I have provided and abandon this idea of complete unrelated individuality of rape incidences somehow makes things O.K. due to a fear of "generalizing". [/QUOTE]You're still not listening, I am well acquainted with the material that you have linked to. Even if up to 85% of said victims would rather not abort, it does not address that small percentage (which is what I am arguing over to begin with) where it would be better for their mental health if they did. You continue to dismiss the fact that there will be those cases. You're still trying to treat them as a blanket condition instead of an incident that requires consideration on a case-by-case basis.

This does not take into account if the mother is too young, or has mental or other health issues. But since you seem to be unwilling to listen to anything I say and keep insisting that abortion is wrong based on [I]your own moral views[/I]. And insisting that it does more harm by linking to material that is based on the emotions you were saying shouldn't come into play...

I suggest you take the time to read some research that isn't so biased when it comes to understanding mental health when associated to one having an abortion. Fair warning, the report runs about 70 pages long. [URL="http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.pdf"][U]Mental Heath and Abortion[/U][/URL]. But like I and others have been saying, it's not a simple matter.

If you want specific cases where abortion over a case involving rape was better, you're moving into asking for confidential information that due to privacy laws, are not mine to disclose. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]You're still not listening, I am well acquainted with the material that you have linked to. Even if up to 85% of said victims would rather not abort, it does not address that small percentage (which is what I am arguing over to begin with) where it would be better for their mental health if they did. You continue to dismiss the fact that there will be those cases. You're still trying to treat them as a blanket condition instead of an incident that requires consideration on a case by case basis. [/quote][/font][/color]

You mean the non-existent cases where it would be better. I'm sorry, but I have found no scientific basis for these claims, and I have found scientific evidence against these claims. I have seen little to no logic how it is these case by case instances would somehow justify rape as a whole, instead of just the circumstances that spur that particular case.

You are arguing from ignorance again.

Big question here: [b]How is it that these case by case instances would justify abortions for rape as a whole, instead of the factors unique to this case?[/b]




[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]This does not take into account if the mother is too young, or has mental or other health issues. But since you seem to be unwilling to listen to anything I say and keep insisting that abortion is wrong based on [I][strike]your own moral views[/strike] [b]statistical proof and anecdotal evidence[/b][/I]. And insisting that it does more harm by linking to material that is based on the emotions you were saying shouldn't come into play... [/quote][/font][/color]

Fixed. You have also made very few statements, other than that the small number of abortions in regards to rape victims does not mean that they can be dismissed. To this point, I do agree. Everything else (other than blanket ideas that abortion is the best option for traumatized victims, which requires more evidence) is not substantial.

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"I suggest you take the time to read some research that isn't so biased when it comes to understanding mental health when associated to one having an abortion. Fair warning, the report runs about 70 pages long. [URL="http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.pdf"][U]Mental Heath and Abortion[/U][/URL]. But like I and others have been saying, it's not a simple matter.

If you want specific cases where abortion over a case involving rape was better, you're moving into asking for confidential information that due to privacy laws, are not mine to disclose. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Finally! Something more substantial. Though can you please cite specific sections of this report? I did a search for the term "rape", and there were no studies/conclusions about how abortion affects women after rape, or molestation. There will need to be more of a requirement on your part other than "look at this link" when the link is as massive as the one I have been provided.

Even then, does anyone think of the child in these instances, or is it all about the mother? The information that I find from Google about women who were raped and have an abortion are pretty easy to find, the children from these relationships are very hard to find statistics on. All I ever get are the children who were conceived in rape being disgusted by people making the case against their lives.

[Darren]

I'm just going to answer the question in my opinion instead of getting involved in the debate that's going on here:

I don't really see a unborn child as a person until they have a functioning brain and heart. I believe this happens sometime in the first 4-5 weeks? (Correct me if I'm wrong)

If you ask me, 4-5 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to either find out or detect their pregnancy. (especially with early pregnancy tests now days) Especially if they're raped... I think that after that, however, it should be considered human... (Even scientists consider an embryo a fetus after 4 weeks)

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You mean the non-existent cases where it would be better. I'm sorry, but I have found no scientific basis for these claims, and I have found scientific evidence against these claims.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]First:

[QUOTE][I]The information that I find from [B][U][COLOR="Red"]Google[/COLOR][/U][/B] about women who were raped and have an abortion are pretty easy to find, the children from these relationships are very hard to find statistics on.
[/I][/QUOTE]
Try something off the internet. Or hey, the Library of Congress. And learn how to research.

Which means that not only have you not read anything she's given you, but that you're [I]also [/I]arguing from ignorance.

[QUOTE][I]Big question here: [b]How is it that these case by case instances would justify abortions for rape as a whole, instead of the factors unique to this case?[/b]
[/I][/QUOTE]
Big answer here, which seems to be flying over your head as you wave blithely whilst attempting to be witty.

[B]No one is justifying abortion for rape victims as a whole. They are presenting it as an option [I]for [U]careful[/U] [U]consideration[/U][/I] in a case by case basis. Just as we cannot say that abortion is right 100% of the time, neither can you say it is wrong 100% of the time [U]for[/U] [U]victims[/U] [U]of[/U] [U]rape[/U][/B]. The [I]choice[/I] is binary. The [I]choice[/I]. Not the situation. That's why it's so doggone difficult to make, and why if I were in the position to advise I would counsel life for the child [I]subtly[/I]. But abortion is not my call, not your call, not the city's, the state's or the nation's call. It's the mother's.

Your mother had you. Her choice.

[QUOTE][I][quote name='Indi][FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]This does not take into account if the mother is too young, or has mental or other health issues. But since you seem to be unwilling to listen to anything I say and keep insisting that abortion is wrong based on [strike]your own moral views[/strike] [strike][B]statistical proof and anecdotal evidence[/B][/strike] [/COLOR][SIZE="3"]your own moral views, supported by what statistical proof and anecdotal evidence you wish to accept[/SIZE]. [COLOR=Indigo]And insisting that it does more harm by linking to material that is based on the emotions you were saying shouldn't come into play...[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]


[strike]Fixed.[/strike][/I][/QUOTE]
Fixed. Don't be an arse. Every one of us is more than capable of returning the favor twenty-fold. We just (typically) choose to be the better man.

[QUOTE][I]Finally! Something more substantial. Though can you please cite specific sections of this report? I did a search for the term "rape", and there were no studies/conclusions about how abortion affects women after rape, or molestation. [U][B]There will need to be more of a requirement on your part other than "look at this link" when the link is as massive as the one I have been provided.[/B][/U] [/I][/QUOTE]
The people responding to you in this thread have done you the courtesy of reading your posts, despite the length.

Return the bloody favor. There will be more of a requirement for you to retain any sense of credibility than to ask everyone else to do your work for you.

Otherwise, you are arguing from ignorance.

[QUOTE][I]Even then, does anyone think of the child in these instances, or is it all about the mother?[/I][/QUOTE]
The child is the mother's. Therefore, it is her duty to consider it against herself. I cannot, you cannot, the city, state, nation?you know the drill.

No one else can speak on that subject. And if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed how [I]everyone else[/I] has been saying this to you.

Incidentally, to claim greater credibility on the matter as a child of a rape victim is to say that you cannot believe the word of anyone who is not the child of a rape victim when compared against your own. This is an [I]ad hominem[/I] falllacy.

And check your posts. Several times you have asked people to justify rape, and not abortion after rape. You look rather foolish, really.[/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]First of all do not 'alter' my statements to fit your views please, that's doing what James already talked about here:[quote] people are answering your question - clearly there are people here who think that abortion is justified in some cases. But when they assert that view, you're then trying to tell them that they're either a) wrong, b) ignorant or c) "just don't know". [/quote]That's a waste of everyone's time if you're going to continue to declare your view to be correct and everyone else incorrect.[quote name='Crimson Spider']Finally! Something more substantial. Though can you please cite specific sections of this report? I did a search for the term "rape", and there were no studies/conclusions about how abortion affects women after rape, or molestation. There will need to be more of a requirement on your part other than "look at this link" when the link is as massive as the one I have been provided. [/QUOTE]The burden of education lies solely on you. It is a comprehensive report on the correlation between mental health and the effect of abortion. If you are unwilling to take the time to read it, clearly you are uninterested in truly understanding how complex an issue this is.

It is not my job to summarize something for you when you're perfectly capable of learning on your own. I've given you a starting point, if you are unwillingly to actually read it, then this discussion is completely useless at this point.

I've done you the courtesy of wading through your massive posts and links to equally massive sources that are often biased. I gave you something in return, something more credible than anecdotal reports and religious viewpoints. Plus anecdotal reports are useless because they are based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.

The report I linked you to address the limitations of the other types of data you have been linking to. As it says at the very beginning: [I]The Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion is charged with collecting, examining, and summarizing the scientific research addressing the mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion, and producing a report based upon a review of the most current research.[/I]

If you're going to claim that abortion is harmful to a woman, you first need to understand whether or not having one actually[I] is[/I] mentally harmful. That report will clarify that for you. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[quote]The burden of proof is on you now (SunfallE, James, Indi, ect). Either provide proof of your claims, or accept the evidence that I have provided and abandon this idea of complete unrelated individuality of rape incidences somehow makes things O.K. due to a fear of "generalizing".[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This is going to be my last comment in this "debate". I will leave this to those who have the energy and interest to continue the debate.

Let me just address the above quote though.

First of all, the burden of proof is just as much on you as it is on anyone else. Your personal opinion is regularly presented as some kind of objective fact, when it is anything but.

Furthermore you haven't provided a single shred of worthwhile evidence in this thread. The "evidence" you refer to is either highly-biased, non-medical [i]or[/i] you've simply conjured it from your own mind.

Several other members have linked to medical information or, at least, far more thorough and accurate sets of data. You've completely swept this aside and ignored it.

We have spent so much time going over largely semantic arguments as well. You don't seem to grasp the simple idea that even in a purely legal sense, individual circumstances matter. You embrace a philosophy or idea when it suits you, then you abandon it when it contradicts your view.

As I've said before, the view that abortion should never be legal is a legitimate view. I don't object to anyone holding that view. What I object to is the armchair psychiatry you've been peddaling in this thread. Not only is it totally unrealistic, but it actually doesn't serve your own cause - it only discredits you to everybody else. It's in your interest to find some real data that can lend weight to your view - or to simply accept that the data doesn't agree with your view, but that you hold the view for personal reasons anyway. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Also, CS, one final thought:[/font]

[quote]You are arguing from ignorance again.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Try to pull yourself out of that "I'm always right" bubble, please. As I've said, people here are respecting you by taking the time to respond to your comments.

You often ask for information and then it's given to you...but you then ask others to summarize it for you. If you aren't going to attempt to understand other people's views (as they are trying to grasp yours), then there is no point continuing to debate in this thread. We've often had to wade through your massive links/posts in an effort to understand your point of view. And then when we do grasp that view and find issues with it on which we disagree... we are all somehow ignorant and wrong. That's really rude and disrespectful - if you're going to aggressively criticize people's sources or views (despite the fact that you haven't attempted to read those sources and understand them), you can't then turn around and complain when people find regular faults with your sources and views as well.

And please keep the arrogance to a minimum. You have a view, so do others. You're no more an authority on these matters than anyone else. As far as I know, nobody in this thread is some kind of medical expert. So please keep those things in mind.[/font]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]First:


Try something off the internet. Or hey, the Library of Congress. And learn how to research.

Which means that not only have you not read anything she's given you, but that you're [I]also [/I]arguing from ignorance.[/quote][/font]

I have read through parts of the things that she has given me (90 page document, sorry if it takes awhile with all of the things that I have to maintain). Her document has mentioned very little in regards to the specific point that she is making regarding rape victims. It has other information, though, so this will likely show up later in the debate. Though one of the sources I mentioned was in print, there is a glorious lack of libraries in my local area. Though if everyone so desires it, I can use my student connections to get me into restricted databases.

I have come to the conclusion that you do not know what an "argument from ignorance" is. The "argument from ignorance" is a type of fallacy in which you state that because an absolute claim cannot be said, that your position is somehow more viable. The equivalent of saying "Because there is no specific proof against, it is still valid". Not necessarily saying that you have a lack of information, but just playing off of a lack of information.


[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Big answer here, which seems to be flying over your head as you wave blithely whilst attempting to be witty.

[B]No one is justifying abortion for rape victims as a whole. They are presenting it as an option [I]for [U]careful[/U] [U]consideration[/U][/I] in a case by case basis. Just as we cannot say that abortion is right 100% of the time, neither can you say it is wrong 100% of the time [U]for[/U] [U]victims[/U] [U]of[/U] [U]rape[/U][/B]. The [I]choice[/I] is binary. The [I]choice[/I]. Not the situation. That's why it's so doggone difficult to make, and why if I were in the position to advise I would counsel life for the child [I]subtly[/I]. But abortion is not my call, not your call, not the city's, the state's or the nation's call. It's the mother's.[/font][/quote]

Allamorph, I would kiss you if I could meet you. [i]Thank you[/i] for actually responding to the question. You will find that I, as many others, agree with the majority of this stance (though specific terminology may differ). The point that I thought of much earlier and have been trying to make that no, it is not the vast generality which makes things O.K.

You take the specific instances in those cases, and it is those particular grounds which may or may not legalize an abortion. As far as the specific ground of being raped goes, that was not satisfactory. And this is my point. It amazes me how people have looked past this, and said that I have somehow ignored the possibility of variability. As if I was arguing that being raped was somehow a qualification made someone unable to have an abortion. I blame this on the auto-assumption stance of the right in all instances, which takes out my statements into those contexts instead of my own.

Whether or not each individual factor (such as post-traumatic stress syndrome) is grounds to allow an abortion, those are what should really be debated. But in the absence of these grounds, the right is not present. I am not going to immediately assume that it is the mother's right when that is what is up for debate.

This is up for debate because, frankly, there are books out about the negative side-effects that women undergo when they abort a baby that was conceived in rape. The debate on the issue is breaking down into ideology instead of actual practice. To say that it is the mother's choice is to say that it is the choice of the mother to make a decision that will negatively affect the rest of her life with 99% occurrence based upon the thoughts during an extremely emotionally tense time. A bad side effect to the "greater practice of freedom". This isn't something that I support.


Though... people are justifying abortions through rape as a whole. It isn't a very logical stance, but it is one that is present. Here is the thought processes.

Step 1: Women who are raped may have various problems.
Step 2: Abortion may be a solution to some of the various problems.
Step 3: Abortions should be allowed for rape victims, because they may or may not have the various problems.

Example:

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium] Yes, it's a psychological condition that legalizes the abortion - but the psychological condition is caused by the rape!
[/quote][/font]

Which is the mental block that I am trying to break. I think the term here is the "fallacy of converse accident", in which the statement assumes that a particular case will allow a much wider generalization due to a relationship. In particular, they assume that it should be legal for rape due to specific instance not necessarily caused by rape. Either people are holding on to this mental block, or they are misunderstanding my point completely.


[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Fixed. Don't be an arse. Every one of us is more than capable of returning the favor twenty-fold. We just (typically) choose to be the better man.[/quote][/font]

I asked for evidence to the contrary of my claim. I haven't been provided with any (unless Indi's link has some well hidden study that somehow contradicts all of the ones done prior). It is annoying that simply claiming bias is enough of an argument on these forums to fly. This is also why it is that I have not made any statements about the bias that someone else has. This is because someone's personal opinion on the matter does not undermine the validity of their stance.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]The people responding to you in this thread have done you the courtesy of reading your posts, despite the length.

Return the bloody favor. There will be more of a requirement for you to retain any sense of credibility than to ask everyone else to do your work for you.

Otherwise, you are arguing from ignorance.[/quote][/font]

This is something that I question, though. I really am not sure that people have even read through my "long posts" (not to say that their posts are not long as well), because the misunderstandings continue to flourish. I can see that you actually have read through the posts, because you are coming to an understanding much more quickly than anyone else here.

In particular, James's post near the top of the page (and it's monstrous size), I found that the entire thing was full of inaccurate assessments of my position, hasty generalizations, and responding to each one would have been an exercise that would have been lost in the verbosity, but largely futile points of discussion anyway. It was much easier to start from scratch in the reply system with a topical post instead of a response post.


[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]The child is the mother's. Therefore, it is her duty to consider it against herself. I cannot, you cannot, the city, state, nation—you know the drill.

No one else can speak on that subject. And if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed how [I]everyone else[/I] has been saying this to you.

Incidentally, to claim greater credibility on the matter as a child of a rape victim is to say that you cannot believe the word of anyone who is not the child of a rape victim when compared against your own. This is an [I]ad hominem[/I] falllacy.

And check your posts. Several times you have asked people to justify rape, and not abortion after rape. You look rather foolish, really.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

But isn't that the right that is being questioned, though? The abortion argument isn't about the practice itself, but the rights that are being exercised. Also, it is albeit unusual to just say that you can't talk about the topic at hand unless you are a specific instance, for the topic at hand is full of philosophical, moral, logical, social, and political issues that need to be discussed.

I was not claiming that someone who isn't the child of a rape victim can't have a correct opinion. My mother's history is just leverage to use against the [i]argumentum ad ignorantiam[/i], because in order for me to claim the opposite of their stance instead of claiming that it is ultimately unknown, I actually have to have evidence/insight on the issue myself. In particular, I was responding to James claim about my supposed lack of information about the reality of rape, and my lack of credibility because "I haven't been sexually abused" myself. So if it is, indeed, an ad hominem fallacy, it is not me who established this claim. If anything, my only fault is that I did not strike it down so quickly.

Yes, I do have a bad habit of ambiguous pronoun usage, due to my desire to avoid repetition in my writing. Though that is really not related to the subject at hand.



[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]First of all do not 'alter' my statements to fit your views please, that's doing what James already talked about here:That's a waste of everyone's time if you're going to continue to declare your view to be correct and everyone else incorrect.The burden of education lies solely on you. It is a comprehensive report on the correlation between mental health and the effect of abortion. If you are unwilling to take the time to read it, clearly you are uninterested in truly understanding how complex an issue this is. [/quote][/font][/color].

Deal. In retrospect, quote altering wasn't the best medium :(.

Anyway, that really doesn't justify the rest of that paragraph (fitting views and all that), because as I mentioned above, I don't think "Bias" is an adequate claim for arguing points, because otherwise I would just claim that your side is biased and leave it there. I want this debate to be about evidence first, definition second, philosophy third.

The burden of education? Never heard that one before. BTW, posting up a massive report and asking me to find all of the evidence for everyone else is a case of a proof by verbosity. You are in this debate, not whomever wrote the report. Therefore, you cannot just say that the report says it all, and then say I'm lazy when I haven't read it all yet.

Anyway, the best evaluation that I have read as to the psychology behind rape victims and abortion was [url=http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html][u] this page [/u][/url] which I had linked to earlier. The explanations were:

[quote]In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape. This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.

Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.

This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.

Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them. [/quote]
Though I noticed something peculiar: You have changed the topic from being about abortions influenced by rape, to abortions in general. This is a substantial leap of subjects, and this I am willing to discuss as well. But later. I have much more to discuss.


[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]It is not my job to summarize something for you when you're perfectly capable of learning on your own. I've given you a starting point, if you are unwillingly to actually read it, then this discussion is completely useless at this point. [/quote][/font][/color]

I covered this above.

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]I've done you the courtesy of wading through your massive posts and links to equally massive sources that are often biased. I gave you something in return, something more credible than anecdotal reports and religious viewpoints. Plus anecdotal reports are useless because they are based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation. [/quote][/font][/color]

So you are saying that what a woman feels is irrelevant to what a woman feels? Anecdotes aren't valuable for observing a distribution, but when you are actually gauging the psychological condition of someone, the personal stories and testimonies behind the incident in question are priceless. When used with the other factors like distribution and case studies, these become very important. That is why the case study in the initial link is needed.

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]The report I linked you to address the limitations of the other types of data you have been linking to. As it says at the very beginning: [I]The Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion is charged with collecting, examining, and summarizing the scientific research addressing the mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion, and producing a report based upon a review of the most current research.[/I][/font][/color][/quote]

The problem with the link you provided me is that it doesn't address the study that I was referring to. Only to abortions in general, which is something that I have not covered in regards to the physical/mental health of the woman. They are correct that if you are going to use a sample, you must not use a sample that is limited to particular contexts for an overall gauge. But, because we are talking about a particular context, those studies are applicable.

[quote name='Indi'][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]If you're going to claim that abortion is harmful to a woman, you first need to understand whether or not having one actually[I] is[/I] mentally harmful. That report will clarify that for you. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I agree. Once we start talking about abortions that are not in cases of rape, your link will be very useful to me if the mental condition of women becomes a subject. Personally, I think that in cases of general abortion that isn't of as much consequence.


[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]This is going to be my last comment in this "debate". I will leave this to those who have the energy and interest to continue the debate.

Let me just address the above quote though.

First of all, the burden of proof is just as much on you as it is on anyone else. Your personal opinion is regularly presented as some kind of objective fact, when it is anything but.

Furthermore you haven't provided a single shred of worthwhile evidence in this thread. The "evidence" you refer to is either highly-biased, non-medical [i]or[/i] you've simply conjured it from your own mind.

Several other members have linked to medical information or, at least, far more thorough and accurate sets of data. You've completely swept this aside and ignored it.

We have spent so much time going over largely semantic arguments as well. You don't seem to grasp the simple idea that even in a purely legal sense, individual circumstances matter. You embrace a philosophy or idea when it suits you, then you abandon it when it contradicts your view.

As I've said before, the view that abortion should never be legal is a legitimate view. I don't object to anyone holding that view. What I object to is the armchair psychiatry you've been peddaling in this thread. Not only is it totally unrealistic, but it actually doesn't serve your own cause - it only discredits you to everybody else. It's in your interest to find some real data that can lend weight to your view - or to simply accept that the data doesn't agree with your view, but that you hold the view for personal reasons anyway. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Also, CS, one final thought:[/font][/quote]

And thankfully, I provided evidence for my claims. If you make a claim, you provide evidence for it. That is all there is to it, really. If you have a problem with me saying something, provide evidence against it.

Bias is not a good enough reason to be against the sources I have provided. These "sources", particularly the most recent study regarding rape victims and abortions, really are "studies" done by larger foundations like Fortress International and the Elliot Institute. I have not ignored the links Indi has provided. I am not changing philosophies. I have no problems if I "discredit" my views to someone who is biased against me to the extent of being unable/refuses to understand my position, for it is akin to discrediting myself to the monkeys in a zoo.

What is really annoying to me is that I had to come to the conclusion about individual factors and circumstances in relation to rape on my own. When I asked a question about emotional circumstances, I received the cookie cutter answer about "individual cases" and "it may be better", and not that you are not talk emotion at all but about other conditions. It was TimeChaser, someone who has only been asking questions himself and interjecting the occasional logical point that answered it was about "other factors than emotion". From there, I came to the conclusion about the nature of circumstances on my own. This is the epitome if misunderstanding, where my statements on the issue are blatantly ignored because they appear "general".


[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Try to pull yourself out of that "I'm always right" bubble, please. As I've said, people here are respecting you by taking the time to respond to your comments.

You often ask for information and then it's given to you...but you then ask others to summarize it for you. If you aren't going to attempt to understand other people's views (as they are trying to grasp yours), then there is no point continuing to debate in this thread. We've often had to wade through your massive links/posts in an effort to understand your point of view. And then when we do grasp that view and find issues with it on which we disagree... we are all somehow ignorant and wrong. That's really rude and disrespectful - if you're going to aggressively criticize people's sources or views (despite the fact that you haven't attempted to read those sources and understand them), you can't then turn around and complain when people find regular faults with your sources and views as well.

And please keep the arrogance to a minimum. You have a view, so do others. You're no more an authority on these matters than anyone else. As far as I know, nobody in this thread is some kind of medical expert. So please keep those things in mind.[/font][/QUOTE]

I have come to the conclusion that you do not know what an "argument from ignorance" is. The "argument from ignorance" is a type of fallacy in which you state that because an absolute claim cannot be said, that your position is somehow more viable. The equivalent of saying "Because there is no specific proof against, it is still valid". Not necessarily saying that you have a lack of information, but just playing off of a lack of information.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='TimeChaser']Thanks, Nathan. That helps clear some things up for me too. I realize diagnosis of such conditions are much better today than they were back then.[/quote]You're welcome. Like Indi pointed out, other than certain types of pregnancies, most of them today are, if caught in time, treatable. And of course the clause about the mother's health must remain since there are types that we simply cannot fix at all.

Now ignoring most if not all of the posts after this one... [spoiler]I'm sorry but I'm allergic to...[/spoiler] one of the biggest flaws I see to the whole human rights argument to begin with is how people are focusing on treating the symptoms instead of the cause. I touched on this before but I'll do so again.

Instead of harping from the supposedly moral high ground (which is utterly useless since claiming your morals/view are superior only makes you look like a douche) of saving life, start looking into how you can prevent those unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Comprehensive sex education for teens along with better and cheaper access to contraceptives for married couples. Work on improving the current adoption system so those who still end up pregnant and don't want it, have a means to hand the baby over to someone who does.

Comprehensive counseling for those who are considering an abortion in addition to better medical regulation to reduce the risks to those who do follow through. It seems that no one wants to take this route since it's of course easier to try and deny it outright instead of giving each case the due consideration required.

That report Indi linked to made it clear, there is no way to put a blanket generalization on any one case since each one will vary a lot. Plus their concluding notes as it says here (yes I read the whole thing and understand how arguing for blanket generalizations are useless): [quote]Based on our comprehensive review and evaluation of the empirical literature published in peer-reviewed journals since 1989, this Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion concludes that the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.[/quote]Made it clear that neither one was better in terms to mental health, because what would be hard on one, would not phase another. Leading back to the realization that outright banning will solve nothing, other than to perhaps make you feel better instead of the people in this situation.

In other words, stop trying to put a one inch band aide on a six foot gash.

[B]EDIT:[/B] And before I forget.. CS, Indi exhaustively explained, from the get go that this is a case by case basis. So why you bother to continue the pointless arguing is beyond me. Or why you listened to Allamorph say the exact same thing and yet ignored the others is pointless as well.

Plus your continual insistence that others are ignorant is merely showcasing your own ignorance when it takes three or four people saying the same thing again and again for you to finally get it. All this does is make you look inflexible and incapable of learning.

You were arguing that mentally, abortion made it worse, that article proved that 'depending on the circumstance' it was no different than if the person had the baby. If you had really read it, you would have understood that Indi was pointing out that you were arguing from ignorance about the very nature of mental stress caused by abortion in the first place. [/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Allamorph didn't say the "exact same thing". He said different things, or "things" with a much more clearly defined logical system, a more direct system which answered claims as I presented them, and answered questions that I asked.

OMG please, people, realize that the "Argument from Ignorance' isn't actually to say that someone is dumb, but they are playing off of a lack of information when they make their claims.

[color=red][size=1]Mod Note: CS, it's worth pointing out that everybody understands this. Yet when people provide detailed scientific data you simply don't read it. So none of those disagreeing with you are speaking from ignorance. Please read posts more carefully. - James[/color][/size]

Also, I was arguing in the specific incidents of rape. As far as general emotional state goes, I am very well aware that the instances that spawned the conditions for an abortion are much more likely to be the cause of the emotional state than the abortion itself.

[Rick Hunter]

This is just another one of those questions in which there are no right or wrong answers. The problem with a topic like this... is the definition or how a person would perceive when a human life is considered living. For some people they believe that a life is technically a "life" upon the first cells dividing after insemination. To others they believe it's not a life until it actually comes out of the womb.

To me personally, I feel at the 3rd trimester you can consider the fetus a living being. If you can feel it kicking and moving and can be born prematurely it's alive to me, by my belief as to what is living.

In regards to abortion itself, I'm neither for or against it. I believe a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with the child. That doesn't neccessarily mean I support abortion though, it's really sad to see a life get denied into this world. But sadly sometimes it's better then a child going through adoptions or worse yet abuse, or living a terrible life....that must sound cruel to say.

In regards to a woman being raped and wanting to abort a child. A female (won't say girlfriend of mine) that I really cared for, was raped at 17. Knowing a person directly that was raped,it effected her greatly emotionally and mentally as a person, to the point that it prevented us from establishing a relationship. It's a really tramatic experience in which the woman is never truly the same and in her case she felt really used and damaged.

I can sympathize in those cases with a woman wanting to abort the child. The problem is really, this is a topic that really has no easy answers and usually offends people. I'm personally not for or against abortion, Each circumstance and reasoning is different so the end result of people's opinions will vary. Including if they are religious or not.

Perhaps my reason for not taking a direct stance is because I'm not a religious person, but I know for others it affects their opinions.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]o_O I am going to conveniently skip most if not all of the posts, I really dislike some of the dramatization that I see going on in threads like this, in addition to the lack respect towards other members who see differently. So with that being said, I'm giong to simply answer the original post. [quote name='Europa][COLOR="Sienna"]"Is an unborn baby really a person?" [/COLOR][/QUOTE]It depends on your beliefs. By the faith I belong to yes. However, that makes my definition extremely biased and only appropriate to me and others who believe the same. To put it in other terms, among my faith, it is seen as the physical body that will house the soul.[QUOTE=Europa][COLOR="Sienna"] Is an unborn baby really a person or is it just a blob? [/COLOR][/QUOTE]You really need to define just what you mean by 'blob.' You may have done so already, but I really don't want to wade through the posts just to find out. If you're trying to say is it human or simply a collection of cells... Literally, in the beginning it [I]is [/I]just a bunch of cells. Living ones to be precise. I'm not going to get into the concept of one's soul being present from the beginning since again, that's a religious belief and not based on actual fact.[QUOTE=Europa][COLOR="Sienna"']Is abortion still wrong if the woman is raped?[/COLOR][/quote]As much as I find the idea of aborting a pregnancy distasteful, it's clear that there are times when it will be necessary. My understanding is that there are some types of health issues that simply can't be cured. So it's either abort the pregnancy or possibly kill both the mother and the child. I think [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] mentioned one type of pregnancy where our medical technology is useless at this point, so there is no choice or option to save both.

Rape I think illustrates the need to not get narrow minded and assume everyone aborting is doing so over selfish reasons. Or rather reasons that could be seen as selfish. It's an extreme that only shows how important it is to realize that all cases of abortion are not the same. These need to be addressed on a case by case basis by a trained professional instead of legislators who to be frank, usually don't know what they are talking about.

Plus if I go around telling others it's wrong to abort, I am doing so based on my [I]religious[/I] beliefs, there is no getting around that. It's my moral views and religious upbringing that tells me it's wrong. So in the end, I cannot, if I am honest with myself, think it's acceptable to force my religious views on someone else. I would be appalled if some other religion came along and started dictating how I can live, so I think it's highly hypocritical to assume my own is somehow better.

Keeping that in mind, I personally think the best course of action for addressing human rights is to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I already know it's not my place to make others choices for them so I'm not going to try. [/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"][B]You really need to define just what you mean by 'blob.'[/B] You may have done so already, but I really don't want to wade through the posts just to find out. If you're trying to say is it human or simply a collection of cells... Literally, in the beginning it [I]is [/I]just a bunch of cells. Living ones to be precise.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Blue"]A blob as in something who's life is worthless. Kinda like a blob of strawberry (or grape, whichever you prefer). Just for clarifaction...............carry on!:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Europa][COLOR="Blue"']A blob as in something who's life is worthless. Kinda like a blob of strawberry (or grape, whichever you prefer). Just for clarifaction...............carry on!:catgirl:[/COLOR][/quote]That's kind of a bit of a contradiction since you're operating on the premises that an undeveloped child is a life and that falls directly back into religious beliefs. So that doesn't really clarify anything. To make it a fair question, you need to be asking is it a person or not. Instead of is it a person or a worthless person. See the problem there? You didn't really ask a objective question but rather a biased one. [/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]That's kind of a bit of a contradiction since you're operating on the premises that an undeveloped child is a life and that falls directly back into religious beliefs. So that doesn't really clarify anything. To make it a fair question, you need to be asking is it a person or not. Instead of is it a person or a worthless person. See the problem there? You didn't really ask a objective question but rather a biased one. [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Blue"]
Well sorry.......................................
I'm kinda doing work and replying on here at the same time.
I wasn't really paying attention to that fact, you know, since I'm kinda not really paying attention to any of the later posts on this thread. I have a headache, and I was just joking about the blob thing. Trying to bring a little lightheartness until we get into all the debating stuff...........but apparently, that didn't work, so, think of it any way you want to. :catgirl:[/COLOR]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Europa][COLOR="Blue"'] Trying to bring a little lightheartness until we get into all the debating stuff...........but apparently, that didn't work, so, think of it any way you want to. :catgirl:[/COLOR][/quote]When someone asks you a question, joking instead of answering it will only make me disposed to never take anything you post here seriously. Especially on a topic like this. And since you pretty much dodged the question by leaving it up to me, there's no point in responding. I'll go with how I was interpreting the question to begin with. [/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]When someone asks you a question, joking instead of answering it will only make me disposed to never take anything you post here seriously. Especially on a topic like this. And since you pretty much dodged the question by leaving it up to me, there's no point in responding. I'll go with how I was interpreting the question to begin with. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Blue"]Yeah, you know, you obviously didn't understand me. I was talking about the blob at the beginning. not the one you were asking. I didn't dodge it, I just didn't have that much time to reply because I'm doing [I][B]school work[/B][/I]. I'd really be happy to answer it now................the answer is that is it just a collection of cells making it unhuman or is it a human as soon as the sperm and egg join? I really didn't want to post here again in the first place, it's just that you asked me a question...........:animeswea[/COLOR]

[Nessaja]

Well, this isn't much of a good philosophical reason or a scientific one of why abortion is right and wrong, but what would scare me is the pregnancy.

I don't know why, I just have a fear of miscarriages or something going wrong during the pregnancy and it hurting me or having to get a c section or something. But even with those fears, I would still go through the pregnancy if I was given the choice to abort. Not really because there are problems with abortions too (damage to the uterus, etc) but because there are better options for me at least. Like making a family happy who wants to adopt a child.

But then again, even though it's rare, I'm not sure what I would do if I got pregnant from rape. I mean, it's a traumatic experience on its own. Both pregnancy and abortion would be adding to the situation for me, thanks to my fears about both of them. But if I chose abortion, I would feel like I was taking the coward's way out I guess. (Not that all women who don't go through the whole nine month experience are cowards, I would just feel that way if I went through with the abortion.)

[quote name='TimeChaser']
As to the last part, think a moment about what you're saying: a woman is raped, she's been violated, a physically and psychologically traumatic experience. It's been forced on her, not of her choosing. If that happened to you, would you really want to endure 9 months of pregnancy and then labor?[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much what I was trying to touch on. I don't know if I could go through with all of that after rape. But also, I don't know if I could deal with the aftermath of an abortion either. It's a hard decision, especially since there's no third road to take. It's either choice one, or choice two. And if you don't make the choice, your body will make it for you.

I think some of the girls on here know how I feel about pregnancy, after reading some of these posts. Also, I'm not speaking out of experience or anything. I have never been pregnant, but some of my friends have been and it just seems easy for me to imagine how it would be since I have the ability to have something like that inside me. If that makes any sense.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Europa'][COLOR="Blue"]Yeah, you know, you obviously didn't understand me. I was talking about the blob at the beginning. not the one you were asking. I didn't dodge it, I just didn't have that much time to reply because I'm doing [I][B]school work[/B][/I]. I'd really be happy to answer it now................the answer is that is it just a collection of cells making it unhuman or is it a human as soon as the sperm and egg join? I really didn't want to post here again in the first place, it's just that you asked me a question...........:animeswea[/COLOR][/QUOTE]You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply saying that from the beginning. Just saying.

Also CS, you've been asked several times already by James to lay off the arrogant I'm right nonsense, I suggest you start following it because from now on, I'll be trimming that out of your posts.