Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion - a scenario.

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:02:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A couple has intercourse and unexpectedly, pregancy results. They neither want a child, nor are they capable of supporting one. (Maybe they weren't meant to be having sex in the first place, but that's beside the point.)

Option? Abortion.

How is this scenario different from a couple taking a loan to buy a new car, without reading the fine print, then finding they are not able to pay back the loan? (Maybe they weren't financially able to pay it back in the first place, but that's beside the point.) Or one can have any example, that is basically a mistake committed knowingly or unknowingly.

Can they now abort the debt, saying, oops, sorry, my mistake?

The only difference I see here is that money is owed to an entity, which has been given the rights to collect it back. The child, however, is not owed to anybody, (well, you can say it's owed to the society, but that's a long leap) so nobody should be able to enforce collection, to put it mildly.

But, is it really a viable example? Should abortions in such scenarios be allowed, regardless?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:03:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:54:47 PM, nonentity wrote:
You can file for bankruptcy.

And live like you did before? I don't think that's possible once you declare for bankruptcy.

What's the comparable scenario here then? Give up sex? For some time?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 3:55:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
uh... because the act of having sex isn't a decision to have a kid... and its in fact possible to very much want to have sex and very much not want to have a kid. on the other hand if you're taking out a loan for the express purpose of buying something then you want to buy it and have committed yourself to doing so. a better comparison to the loan thing would be having a kid and deciding you don't want it anymore so leaving it in the woods somewhere or killing it. or maybe getting in vitro fertilization and then having an abortion.

or on the other side, its like engaging in an activity with known risks (say investing in the stock market), suffering an unexpected result (losing money) and taking steps to mitigate the damages (invest in other stocks you think will perform better).
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:15:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:55:36 PM, belle wrote:
uh... because the act of having sex isn't a decision to have a kid... and its in fact possible to very much want to have sex and very much not want to have a kid. on the other hand if you're taking out a loan for the express purpose of buying something then you want to buy it and have committed yourself to doing so. a better comparison to the loan thing would be having a kid and deciding you don't want it anymore so leaving it in the woods somewhere or killing it. or maybe getting in vitro fertilization and then having an abortion.

or on the other side, its like engaging in an activity with known risks (say investing in the stock market), suffering an unexpected result (losing money) and taking steps to mitigate the damages (invest in other stocks you think will perform better).

nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:16:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:54:47 PM, nonentity wrote:
You can file for bankruptcy.

Then with an abortion should come sterilazation, to make it equivalent. Or more likely, a 7 year IUD.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 3:55:36 PM, belle wrote:
uh... because the act of having sex isn't a decision to have a kid... and its in fact possible to very much want to have sex and very much not want to have a kid. on the other hand if you're taking out a loan for the express purpose of buying something then you want to buy it and have committed yourself to doing so. a better comparison to the loan thing would be having a kid and deciding you don't want it anymore so leaving it in the woods somewhere or killing it. or maybe getting in vitro fertilization and then having an abortion.

or on the other side, its like engaging in an activity with known risks (say investing in the stock market), suffering an unexpected result (losing money) and taking steps to mitigate the damages (invest in other stocks you think will perform better).

That doesn't undo the lost money, that merely mitigates it (like giving the baby for adoption).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 4:15:36 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 4/11/2011 3:55:36 PM, belle wrote:
uh... because the act of having sex isn't a decision to have a kid... and its in fact possible to very much want to have sex and very much not want to have a kid. on the other hand if you're taking out a loan for the express purpose of buying something then you want to buy it and have committed yourself to doing so. a better comparison to the loan thing would be having a kid and deciding you don't want it anymore so leaving it in the woods somewhere or killing it. or maybe getting in vitro fertilization and then having an abortion.

One can say that having sex isn't about having a kid, but the fact remains that having sex, can lead to having a kid. So, given the fact that they got pregnant, without their wanting to, who is at fault? Nature? You can't just dismiss it as an accident, like a tree falling on you when you are standing on the porch. You can deem nature responsible for that. But getting pregnant is not an accident, no matter how much one wants to term it as such.

or on the other side, its like engaging in an activity with known risks (say investing in the stock market), suffering an unexpected result (losing money) and taking steps to mitigate the damages (invest in other stocks you think will perform better).

nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:33:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.

Either I'm not making the comparison clearly, or you are not understanding it properly.

Guy rides bike, gets in an accident and gets injured due to his own mistake (as he was not planning on having that accident). He needs treatment that costs x amount, but he argues that since it was an accident, he will only pay a fraction of the x amount.

Our hypothetical couple has had a "sexual accident". Their cost for this accident, is to raise the child (x amount). But they cannot afford it or don't want it, and since it was an accident, they want to pay only a fraction of that x amount (abortion/amount for abortion).
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:57:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 10:33:52 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.

Either I'm not making the comparison clearly, or you are not understanding it properly.

Guy rides bike, gets in an accident and gets injured due to his own mistake (as he was not planning on having that accident). He needs treatment that costs x amount, but he argues that since it was an accident, he will only pay a fraction of the x amount.

Our hypothetical couple has had a "sexual accident". Their cost for this accident, is to raise the child (x amount). But they cannot afford it or don't want it, and since it was an accident, they want to pay only a fraction of that x amount (abortion/amount for abortion).
The cost for the accident is NOT simply to raise the child. It's not that you're not comparing clearly or that I'm not understanding, it's that your language is profoundly stupid. The cost for a biking accident is having say a broken leg OR paying for the treatment. It's not paying for "part of the cost" to buy the treatment, though doing so is preferable.

Likewise, the cost for a sexual accident is 9 months pregnancy OR an abortion.

In order to avoid paying the treatment, the dude would have to steal money from someone.

Who is the aborter stealing from?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:57:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
your *comparison* is profoundly stupid.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:05:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 10:33:52 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.

Either I'm not making the comparison clearly, or you are not understanding it properly.

Guy rides bike, gets in an accident and gets injured due to his own mistake (as he was not planning on having that accident). He needs treatment that costs x amount, but he argues that since it was an accident, he will only pay a fraction of the x amount.

Our hypothetical couple has had a "sexual accident". Their cost for this accident, is to raise the child (x amount). But they cannot afford it or don't want it, and since it was an accident, they want to pay only a fraction of that x amount (abortion/amount for abortion).

You're mixing "consequence" and "cost". You're assuming that pregnancy is the full cost when, in fact, it is merely a consequence of prior behavior. In other words, it's only the "full cost" because you define it to be that way. The question of "Why?" breaks your argument's back, because it demonstrates that you're only sticking the couple with a child because you want to make a point on some personal moral/emotional level.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:07:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 10:57:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2011 10:33:52 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.

Either I'm not making the comparison clearly, or you are not understanding it properly.

Guy rides bike, gets in an accident and gets injured due to his own mistake (as he was not planning on having that accident). He needs treatment that costs x amount, but he argues that since it was an accident, he will only pay a fraction of the x amount.

Our hypothetical couple has had a "sexual accident". Their cost for this accident, is to raise the child (x amount). But they cannot afford it or don't want it, and since it was an accident, they want to pay only a fraction of that x amount (abortion/amount for abortion).
The cost for the accident is NOT simply to raise the child. It's not that you're not comparing clearly or that I'm not understanding, it's that your language is profoundly stupid. The cost for a biking accident is having say a broken leg OR paying for the treatment. It's not paying for "part of the cost" to buy the treatment, though doing so is preferable.
Yes. Likewise, the cost for the pregnancy is having the child OR eliminating it. (Not all costs are monetary)

Likewise, the cost for a sexual accident is 9 months pregnancy OR an abortion.
Well, the sexual accident IS the pregnancy. So you are saying that the cost for the pregnancy is 9 months pregnancy, which makes no sense. Also, what after the 9 months are over? That doesn't figure?

In order to avoid paying the treatment, the dude would have to steal money from someone.
He's not stealing from anyone to make the full payment. He's arguing that he doesn't have to pay fully! Since according to him it was an accident.

Who is the aborter stealing from?
What? Where does the question of stealing come from?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:05:15 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/13/2011 10:33:52 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 2:21:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:06:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/12/2011 2:55:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah i think a better example is if you ride a motorcycle, knowing that you have a risk of getting hurt (whether you use protection or not, you can still get hurt. Just liou can still get pregnant), should you still get medical attention, knowing that you were doing something 'risky'.

Yes, you should. What you should not get, however, is a pass on paying the bill for the medical attention.
Which implies...

you should be able to purchase an abortion, just not have johnny gov't provide it free.

No. It implies, you should "pay" for your mistake. You can't dodge payment by saying it was a mistake.

Having an abortion == Dodging "payment"

No. Paying for abortion= paying for abortion. Just like paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident is paying for a leg broken in a motorcycle accident. If you believe either is "dodging" payment, you believe the other is.

Either I'm not making the comparison clearly, or you are not understanding it properly.

Guy rides bike, gets in an accident and gets injured due to his own mistake (as he was not planning on having that accident). He needs treatment that costs x amount, but he argues that since it was an accident, he will only pay a fraction of the x amount.

Our hypothetical couple has had a "sexual accident". Their cost for this accident, is to raise the child (x amount). But they cannot afford it or don't want it, and since it was an accident, they want to pay only a fraction of that x amount (abortion/amount for abortion).

You're mixing "consequence" and "cost". You're assuming that pregnancy is the full cost when, in fact, it is merely a consequence of prior behavior. In other words, it's only the "full cost" because you define it to be that way. The question of "Why?" breaks your argument's back, because it demonstrates that you're only sticking the couple with a child because you want to make a point on some personal moral/emotional level.

Well, yes. Pregnancy is the consequence of the prior behavior. But it's not the "full cost". I'm saying that the full cost is having the child.

If the bike rider gets injured, it's the consequence of his mistake (maybe not wearing a helmet, or whatever). But the injury is not the "full cost".

Why is this breaking the back of my argument?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
actually, she could have insurance, and the insurance could cover it fully, or mostly.
Its her choice to purchase the insurance, just as its her choice to purchase an abortion.

It would be more costly to pay out of pocket would be more costly to raise the kid.
You could go elsewhere (like canada) for more expensive medical care (or mexico if you just want the drugs cheap) which would be similar to giving it up for adoption.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:15:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
actually, she could have insurance, and the insurance could cover it fully, or mostly.
Its her choice to purchase the insurance, just as its her choice to purchase an abortion.
Insurance for what? I didn't get it.

It would be more costly to pay out of pocket would be more costly to raise the kid.
You could go elsewhere (like canada) for more expensive medical care (or mexico if you just want the drugs cheap) which would be similar to giving it up for adoption.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:18:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:15:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
actually, she could have insurance, and the insurance could cover it fully, or mostly.
Its her choice to purchase the insurance, just as its her choice to purchase an abortion.
Insurance for what? I didn't get it.

It would be more costly to pay out of pocket would be more costly to raise the kid.
You could go elsewhere (like canada) for more expensive medical care (or mexico if you just want the drugs cheap) which would be similar to giving it up for adoption.

umm, medical care?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:22:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or actualy indo, lets say a house fire.
if you pay for insurance it only pays if its an accident.
So if you set your house on fire for the insurance money you don't get it.
If you go out of your way to get pregnant you don't get it.

My aunt had an electrical fire destroy her house a few months back. Even tho they actively did something (use of electronics, keeping things plugged in while they were out of the house) it was enough of an accident for insurance to cover it.
actively having sex=/=actively trying to get pregnant.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:22:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:18:44 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:15:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
actually, she could have insurance, and the insurance could cover it fully, or mostly.
Its her choice to purchase the insurance, just as its her choice to purchase an abortion.
Insurance for what? I didn't get it.

It would be more costly to pay out of pocket would be more costly to raise the kid.
You could go elsewhere (like canada) for more expensive medical care (or mexico if you just want the drugs cheap) which would be similar to giving it up for adoption.

umm, medical care?

Medical care for giving birth to the child? But I'm not arguing for that cost. I'm not saying that they are aborting because they can't afford the costs of medical care. They are aborting because they don't want the child. They don't want to bear the "cost" of having the child.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:25:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:22:26 AM, lovelife wrote:
Or actualy indo, lets say a house fire.
if you pay for insurance it only pays if its an accident.
So if you set your house on fire for the insurance money you don't get it.
If you go out of your way to get pregnant you don't get it.

My aunt had an electrical fire destroy her house a few months back. Even tho they actively did something (use of electronics, keeping things plugged in while they were out of the house) it was enough of an accident for insurance to cover it.
actively having sex=/=actively trying to get pregnant.

They did not try to get pregnant. They just got pregnant. They just don't want the child.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:29:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:25:29 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:22:26 AM, lovelife wrote:
Or actualy indo, lets say a house fire.
if you pay for insurance it only pays if its an accident.
So if you set your house on fire for the insurance money you don't get it.
If you go out of your way to get pregnant you don't get it.

My aunt had an electrical fire destroy her house a few months back. Even tho they actively did something (use of electronics, keeping things plugged in while they were out of the house) it was enough of an accident for insurance to cover it.
actively having sex=/=actively trying to get pregnant.

They did not try to get pregnant. They just got pregnant. They just don't want the child.

so if they pay for the "insurance" (abortion) no harm done.
That's exactly what I said.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:30:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:22:35 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:18:44 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:15:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:13:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
actually, she could have insurance, and the insurance could cover it fully, or mostly.
Its her choice to purchase the insurance, just as its her choice to purchase an abortion.
Insurance for what? I didn't get it.

It would be more costly to pay out of pocket would be more costly to raise the kid.
You could go elsewhere (like canada) for more expensive medical care (or mexico if you just want the drugs cheap) which would be similar to giving it up for adoption.

umm, medical care?

Medical care for giving birth to the child? But I'm not arguing for that cost. I'm not saying that they are aborting because they can't afford the costs of medical care. They are aborting because they don't want the child. They don't want to bear the "cost" of having the child.

no, the medical care for the motorcycle accident.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:47:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The world doesn't have enough natural resources to support the human race as it is: and this problem is exacerbated by people in affluent West nations consuming far more than their fair share of food, fuel and other products.

Therefore, abortions in developed countries should be celebrated as they reduce the burden on our planet's already overstretched reserves.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 1:05:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:47:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The world doesn't have enough natural resources to support the human race as it is: and this problem is exacerbated by people in affluent West nations consuming far more than their fair share of food, fuel and other products.

Therefore, abortions in developed countries should be celebrated as they reduce the burden on our planet's already overstretched reserves.

especially if the parents are fat!
signature
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 1:23:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:47:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The world doesn't have enough natural resources to support the human race as it is: and this problem is exacerbated by people in affluent West nations consuming far more than their fair share of food, fuel and other products.

Mostly they are affluent because they consume far more than their fair share. So one should not be affluent? What's a fair share? It'd be good if there were an equation that would give us the correct answer.

Therefore, abortions in developed countries should be celebrated as they reduce the burden on our planet's already overstretched reserves.

In fact, I argued somewhere else that it's the affluent people who should be having more children and not the less affluent ones. Do you think this is unreasonable?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:37:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 2:35:22 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/11/2011 4:15:36 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 4/11/2011 3:55:36 PM, belle wrote:
uh... because the act of having sex isn't a decision to have a kid... and its in fact possible to very much want to have sex and very much not want to have a kid. on the other hand if you're taking out a loan for the express purpose of buying something then you want to buy it and have committed yourself to doing so. a better comparison to the loan thing would be having a kid and deciding you don't want it anymore so leaving it in the woods somewhere or killing it. or maybe getting in vitro fertilization and then having an abortion.

One can say that having sex isn't about having a kid, but the fact remains that having sex, can lead to having a kid. So, given the fact that they got pregnant, without their wanting to, who is at fault? Nature? You can't just dismiss it as an accident, like a tree falling on you when you are standing on the porch. You can deem nature responsible for that. But getting pregnant is not an accident, no matter how much one wants to term it as such.

standing on a porch next to a tree includes the risk of having the tree fall over on you. having sex includes the risk of getting pregnant. unless you're prepared to argue that the purpose of sex is reproduction, which i think you'll have a hard time proving, theres no grounds for having differing opinions between the two situations.

and thanks lovelife, my second example sucked lol i hit a mental block...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:45:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I accidentally gloss over the fine print of a contract, I am still liable for the mistake because backing out would be in violation of what I agreed to and signed up for. If I accidentally fall on a peen and get pregnant I have not violated an agreement with anyone.
President of DDO