Abortion Not Seen Linked With Depression (msnbc)

[Arpy]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1726261' date='Dec 11 2008, 07:57 PM']That is YOUR opinion, and your opinion doesn't make something objectively so. As I said, it's a matter of perspective. If someone believes it to be intrinsically evil, they are more likely to suffer guilt, anxiety and depression than someone who doesn't. That's what we're talking about here, not whether abortion is objectively right or wrong.[/quote]
It does if it also happens to be God's opinion. Truth is objective.
[quote name='bonkers' post='1726371' date='Dec 12 2008, 12:26 AM']Sounds like you're exhibiting an opinion. What sources do you have to prove this? I specifically remember failing exams at uni, not deliberality but through apathy (not caring) because the result did not impact on my final grade. This was neither anti-social nor depressive.

Then why did you use an objectively bad example, especially one as trivial as a test? Abortion is subjective, some people don't see it as bad, so I don't understand the link between that and your experiment. Your logic only applies to persons who think abortion is objectively bad. You would need to demonstrate your point using a subjective example, such as abortion.[/quote]
And who says abortion is a subjective example? Can you give me evidence? Facts? Studies? People may have been conditioned to think nothing of it, but that doesn't make it more acceptable. Again, how do popular views on something (in)validate it? Abortion is objectively bad, though there are certainly circumstances that can reduce the culpability of those involved.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1726573' date='Dec 12 2008, 02:43 PM']It does if it also happens to be God's opinion. Truth is objective.

And who says abortion is a subjective example? Can you give me evidence? Facts? Studies? People may have been conditioned to think nothing of it, but that doesn't make it more acceptable. Again, how do popular views on something (in)validate it? Abortion is objectively bad, though there are certainly circumstances that can reduce the culpability of those involved.[/quote]

You don't get it. For the purpose of this discussion I and lilllabett are not taking abortion as objectively evil, because that is not the point we are trying to make. If you want to start a debate on whether or not abortion is objectively is wrong start another thread.

[mortify]

I've met women who appeared to be totally unphased by having abortions in their past. I think if one's conscience is clouded it's quite possible that someone could feel no emotional pain.

[jeffpugh]

It's amazing that some people who take "science" as their creed highly underestimate the capability and functionality of the human body. Where is the sense of wonder?

[KnightofChrist]

Is it any wonder that a people that have murdered their young for so long now would not feel 'depressed' about it?

[Socrates]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1726242' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:25 PM']Of course, women, who are brainwashed into believing they are committing murder are more LIKELY to suffer anxiety and depression than someone thinks they are doing nothing wrong. That's not to say every woman who has an abortion and believes they committed murder aren't emotionally well equipped to deal with it, but generally speaking you will find those who suffer from guilt from having an abortion [u]believe they did a bad thing[/u], and those that don't believe they didn't.[/quote]
Yeah, those women who have been [i]brainwashed[/i] into thinking that there's actually something wrong with crushing a child's skull and sucking it's brain's out, or burning it to death with chemicals!
The poor geniuses!
(As opposed to those women who have been [i]enlightened[/i] and [i]educated[/i] that there's nothing whatever wrong with killing there baby, or that it's "just a blob of cells.")

For someone who's always touting his "rationality" and decrying "emotional appeals," you sure use some loaded language.

Of course, you prove nothing with your rhetoric.
Returning to the slavery example, one could just as easily argue: "Of course, slave-owners, who are brainwashed into believing black people are human beings with equal dignity are more LIKELY to suffer anxiety and depression than someone thinks they are doing nothing wrong."

And the whole method of using subjective emotions (or lack thereof) as the primary rationale for determining whether abortion is right or wrong is absurd and weak.
One should instead focus on the objective facts of what the act of abortion actually involves.

Again it is you pro-abortionists who are being far from rational, but are instead relying on empty rhetoric and emotionalism.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1729113' date='Dec 15 2008, 10:55 PM']Yeah, those women who have been [i]brainwashed[/i] into thinking that there's actually something wrong with crushing a child's skull and sucking it's brain's out, or burning it to death with chemicals!
The poor geniuses!
(As opposed to those women who have been [i]enlightened[/i] and [i]educated[/i] that there's nothing whatever wrong with killing there baby, or that it's "just a blob of cells.")[/quote]

Cheap emotional rhetoric. on the contrary it's holy and enlightened and objective and scientfic to tell women who take the morning after pill to dispose of some of inanimate, formless cells (no brain, no skull) they are guilty of comitting the most henious act of horror on earth, MURDER OF AN INNOCENT CHILD?

[quote]Returning to the slavery example, one could just as easily argue: "Of course, slave-owners, who are brainwashed into believing black people are human beings with equal dignity are more LIKELY to suffer anxiety and depression than someone thinks they are doing nothing wrong."[/quote]

You're comparing slavery with murder, which is obviously stupid given the bible condones it.

[quote]And the whole method of using subjective emotions (or lack thereof) as the primary rationale for determining whether abortion is right or wrong is absurd and weak.
One should instead focus on the objective facts of what the act of abortion actually involves.[/quote]

Well we both agree. I would argue it's your religious fueled rhetoric forbidding you from forming objective opinion on the matter. I have no such obligation. I can take an objective, unbiased look and decide for myself. You can't.

[Arpy]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1729277' date='Dec 15 2008, 09:15 PM']Cheap emotional rhetoric. on the contrary it's holy and enlightened and objective and scientfic to tell women who take the morning after pill to dispose of some of inanimate, formless cells (no brain, no skull) they are guilty of comitting the most henious act of horror on earth, MURDER OF AN INNOCENT CHILD?[/quote]
And did you see the sentence after where he accused you of using loaded language? I believe he was giving you some of your own back.
[quote name='bonkers' post='1729277' date='Dec 15 2008, 09:15 PM']You're comparing slavery with murder, which is obviously stupid given the bible condones it.[/quote]
My knowledge of the Bible is far from complete, but perhaps you can inform me as to where it actually tells us to keep slaves? As far as I know, it only mentions people who had slaves. Also, note the book of Philemon.
[quote name='bonkers' post='1729277' date='Dec 15 2008, 09:15 PM']Well we both agree. I would argue it's your religious fueled rhetoric forbidding you from forming objective opinion on the matter. I have no such obligation. I can take an objective, unbiased look and decide for myself. You can't.[/quote]
And I would say it's your atheistically-fueled rhetoric preventing you from forming an objective opinion on the matter. Which is not to say that we're objective either; it's two sides of a coin. But only one of those sides can be right: Either abortion is, at the most basic level, wrong, or it isn't.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1729307' date='Dec 16 2008, 01:46 AM']And did you see the sentence after where he accused you of using loaded language? I believe he was giving you some of your own back.[/quote]

The accusation of 'murder' is not a loaded term?

[quote]My knowledge of the Bible is far from complete, but perhaps you can inform me as to where it actually tells us to keep slaves? As far as I know, it only mentions people who had slaves. Also, note the book of Philemon.[/quote]

The bible is very specific in its advocacy of slavery. It doesn't say "you must have slaves", but it condones slavery.

"Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, in fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" that being "as to the Lord, and not to men" - St Paul

[quote]And I would say it's your atheistically-fueled rhetoric preventing you from forming an objective opinion on the matter. Which is not to say that we're objective either; it's two sides of a coin. But only one of those sides can be right: Either abortion is, at the most basic level, wrong, or it isn't.[/quote]

My opinion is not [i]atheistically[/i] fueled. I am not compelled to believe one way or the other, I am free to choose for myself. You don't have that choice. You have to be pro-life otherwise your in contravention of your moral authority. There are some atheistic pro-life people, however if I were opposed to abortion I would probably choose to call myself something other than pro-life, like anti-abortionist or something, because I would not want to be associated with people who use personal attacks and weak rationale to try to beat people into submission.

Abortion at its most basic level isn't black or white. Sometimes mitigating circumstances can override the rights of a foetus, such as when a mothers life is at risk, but not even that's a black and white issue.

[Socrates]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1729277' date='Dec 16 2008, 01:15 AM']Cheap emotional rhetoric. on the contrary it's holy and enlightened and objective and scientfic to tell women who take the morning after pill to dispose of some of inanimate, formless cells (no brain, no skull) they are guilty of comitting the most henious act of horror on earth, MURDER OF AN INNOCENT CHILD?[/quote]
It is you who are engaging in cheap emotional rhetoric, rather than truth.

First of all, a human embryo, even right after conception, is neither inanimate nor formless.

Inanimate means non-living. There would be no need to kill or expell an inanimate non-living cell, as such a cell could never grow and develop to term.
The very fact that an unborn child grows proves that it is alive, and not a non-living or inanimate object.

And the embryo is hardly formless, but even as a single cell is an incredibly complex organism, which also contains all the genetic code necessary to grow and develop into an adult human being.

[quote]You're comparing slavery with murder, which is obviously stupid given the bible condones it.[/quote]
Red herring.
The slavery St. Paul speaks of is more like indentured servitude. However, there have been many debates on thats topic; if you want to run a search, you are more than welcome to post in one or start your own.
However, the topic here is abortion.
And as an atheist, it would seem you would care little what the Bible says about it anyway.
My point was simply to show the emptiness and foolishness of dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "brainwashed."
Hardly the mark of a "rational" and "unbiased" mind.

[quote]Well we both agree. I would argue it's your religious fueled rhetoric forbidding you from forming objective opinion on the matter. I have no such obligation. I can take an objective, unbiased look and decide for myself. You can't.[/quote]
Ironically, I have yet to see a single objective, unbiased argument from you. Your postings show quite the contrary.
All you've done is repeatedly assert your superior rationality, and dismiss all opposition to your pro-abort views as "brainwashed," "propaganda," etc.
Such name-calling drivel is a level of "debate" more appropriate to a belligerent six-year-old than a rational adult.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1729113' date='Dec 15 2008, 11:55 PM']Yeah, those women who have been [i]brainwashed[/i] into thinking that there's actually something wrong with crushing a child's skull and sucking it's brain's out, or burning it to death with chemicals!
The poor geniuses!
(As opposed to those women who have been [i]enlightened[/i] and [i]educated[/i] that there's nothing whatever wrong with killing there baby, or that it's "just a blob of cells.")

For someone who's always touting his "rationality" and decrying "emotional appeals," you sure use some loaded language.

Of course, you prove nothing with your rhetoric.
Returning to the slavery example, one could just as easily argue: "Of course, slave-owners, who are brainwashed into believing black people are human beings with equal dignity are more LIKELY to suffer anxiety and depression than someone thinks they are doing nothing wrong."

And the whole method of using subjective emotions (or lack thereof) as the primary rationale for determining whether abortion is right or wrong is absurd and weak.
One should instead focus on the objective facts of what the act of abortion actually involves.

Again it is you pro-abortionists who are being far from rational, but are instead relying on empty rhetoric and emotionalism.[/quote]


Do you understand that the procedure you describe applies to late term abortions, and that only 1.4% of abortions occur after 20 weeks?

So your amotionally charged example is relivent for, at most, 1.4% of all abortions, for the other 98.6% it is utterly irrelivant.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1730121' date='Dec 16 2008, 11:49 PM']Do you understand that the procedure you describe applies to late term abortions, and that only 1.4% of abortions occur after 20 weeks?

So your amotionally charged example is relivent for, at most, 1.4% of all abortions, for the other 98.6% it is utterly irrelivant.[/quote]
The methods described can be used to kill an unborn baby younger than 20 weeks, but that is largely irrelevant. Killing an innocent baby by any method is seriously evil, and the fact is that killing a baby by the methods I described remains fully legal right up until the moment the baby is born.

Even taking your statistics at face value, that still adds up to about nineteen thousand "late term" babies brutally killed every year in the U.S. alone!

But I suppose it's much easier (and so much less "amotional") to deal with these murdered babies as just numerical percentages rather than human beings.
Personally, I'd consider even one child thus murdered to be too much, but never mind me; I'm just a dumb emotional irrational religious type.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Socrates

[bonkers]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1730117' date='Dec 16 2008, 10:45 PM']It is you who are engaging in cheap emotional rhetoric, rather than truth.[/quote]

[i]"Yeah, those women who have been brainwashed into thinking that there's actually something wrong with crushing a child's skull and sucking it's brain's out, or burning it to death with chemicals!"[/i]

Is not cheap, emotional rhetoric? I don't think the word "murder" is any less cheap or emotionally charged than the word "brainwashed".

[quote]First of all, a human embryo, even right after conception, is neither inanimate nor formless.

Inanimate means non-living. There would be no need to kill or expell an inanimate non-living cell, as such a cell could never grow and develop to term.
The very fact that an unborn child grows proves that it is alive, and not a non-living or inanimate object.

And the embryo is hardly formless, but even as a single cell is an incredibly complex organism, which also contains all the genetic code necessary to grow and develop into an adult human being.[/quote]

The complexity of an orgnanism doesn't alone determine if something is human, or if it has human form, or if we give it rights. Ants are also complex but doesn't mean they're human.
People are infinitely more complex than an embryo. Can embryo's think, feel, experience, love, forgive, communicate? I argue these things are important in considering whether something has rights and if so, what rights should be given to it.

[quote]Red herring.[/quote]

I'm not the one comparing abortion with slavery.

[quote]The slavery St. Paul speaks of is more like indentured servitude. However, there have been many debates on thats topic; if you want to run a search, you are more than welcome to post in one or start your own.
However, the topic here is abortion.
And as an atheist, it would seem you would care little what the Bible says about it anyway.
My point was simply to show the emptiness and foolishness of dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "brainwashed."
Hardly the mark of a "rational" and "unbiased" mind.[/quote]

And my point was to show you the emptiness and foolishness and hypocrisy of dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as baby killers or advocates for it. If you can't take criticism, stop dishing it out on everyone around you.

[quote]Ironically, I have yet to see a single objective, unbiased argument from you.[/quote]

That wrongdoing often linked with guilt and that guilt is often linked with depression is not objective and unbiased? I demand to be proven wrong.

[quote]Your postings show quite the contrary.
All you've done is repeatedly assert your superior rationality, and dismiss all opposition to your pro-abort views as "brainwashed," "propaganda," etc.
Such name-calling drivel is a level of "debate" more appropriate to a belligerent six-year-old than a rational adult.[/quote]

Ad hominen. You're like a little priest who goes around rebuking others and belittling their arguements but then offers nothing of substnace or value to your own postings.

Edited December 18, 2008 by bonkers

[add]

Bonkers
You were once an embryo, very much alive and growing in our mother’s belly, is this not true?

[bonkers]

[quote name='apparently' post='1731234' date='Dec 18 2008, 10:43 AM']Bonkers
You were once an embryo, very much alive and growing in our mother’s belly, is this not true?[/quote]

Yep.