Discussion Topic: Abortion [Archive]

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 04:23 AM

Hmmm.
So Abortion.
A story in the local news recently has got me thinking about this a bit. Again pro-lifers are daring to try and dictate a womens freedoms. This after yet another scientific study that reveals foetus' don't feel pain

Its ridiculous.

Abortion.

Are you for it? Against it? Should it be legal? Is it murder? Should it be a womens right to have an abortion?

Personally I'm very pro-choice. Women should be able to legally abort in the first trimester and their own choice. She also shouldn't have to defend her reasons. After that, there needs to be a valid life saving medical reason. There are times it seems when abortion is the only choice for a pregnant women, and that choice should ne be removed because some people don't like it. Abortion is not murder anymore than wearing a condom is. Or going on the pill.

Thoughts?

Anubis Nine

09-08-2005, 04:33 AM

If there isn't a safe place and trained person for this to be done and for this to be done by, there are other more harmful things to the mother that may not get rid of the baby but might damage it for life.

The sanctity of life is destroyed by war and other such travesties, but many people support it. But that's a different story.

I don't believe one mistake should be allowed to ruin a young teenage mother's life. And it's not fair that she usually gets dumped on her parents while her boyfriend runs off. (Not always the case but you know,)

Pro-choice.

Pierrot le Fou

09-08-2005, 04:50 AM

I absolutely despise abortion. I think that it's a horrible God-awful sin against humanity that should never have to exist. Rather like war. And therein lies the problem... Just like war is necessary, so is abortion, because without the right to the choice (war or abortion) there are going to be some really crappy situations with no way out of them. And that's just no good.

My question is, why other than it being the status quo, is it first trimester only? Why draw the line there? I've heard arguments because it's the status quo, because it's when the baby is viable with current medical technology, blah blah blah, yet we can also grow babies in test tubes (even if they don't do so well) and medical technology will keep improving -- if we need to cut it off when they become viable without the mother, won't that eventually preclude even things such as the morning after pill?

And Hell, generally the first trimester is when most women have miscarriages. Is that a factor? So that there can be plausible deniability about why the pregnancy was lost?

I think the abortion issue is a mess. An absolute mess.

Jay

09-08-2005, 04:52 AM

I'm all for abortion, personally. Who am I to say that a woman can't have her twelve-cell-big baby sucked out of her vagina by a vacuum cleaner?

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 04:55 AM

First trimester because there is less risk of harm to the mother, less chance of long term damage, somewhat less of a psychological scar being incurred from the act, the fact taht there is some evidence that after the first trimester and part of the second the foetus does have some sense of awareness/'life'.

It seems through some looking around a few months back that even many abortion doctors don't feel comfortable with second or third trimester abortions, while they are ok with first trimester.

Hence why I said first trimester should be freely available, but later trimester abortions should be performed only for life saving/intervention reasons.

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 04:56 AM

I'm all for abortion, personally. Who am I to say that a woman can't have her twelve-cell-big baby sucked out of her vagina by a vacuum cleaner?
How... delightful a way to put it.

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:01 AM

How... delightful a way to put it.

Yeah, I thought it would get a few giggles...

...or a few flames.

Contraversial. :D

Pierrot le Fou

09-08-2005, 05:07 AM

Tssss..

09-08-2005, 05:08 AM

i detest abortion. i think its murder. it doesn't matter if the mother should suffer for one mistake, should the child be slaughtered for being innocent? for being incapable of defending itself?

and don't tell me special circumstances like rape. there is a 24 hour pill they will give you for free if you have been raped.

people are always saying a woman has a choice of what to do with her own body. yeah, she did have the choice. she had the choice not to fuck around. she had the choice to use protection. she had the choice to get the 24 hour pill. she had the choice to set it up for adoption.

abortion is a selfish way to punish someone else for your own damn mistakes. its just a word we use to describe murdering an unborn child so our consciences don't suffer from guilt.

Joe

09-08-2005, 05:22 AM

Edit: I should have seen this for what it really was sooner. *not getting involved*

eyez0nme

09-08-2005, 05:24 AM

vacuum the baby? i prefer vacuuming to brain, from the neck. It's alot faster way to die.

KKF

09-08-2005, 05:24 AM

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 05:25 AM

i detest abortion. i think its murder. it doesn't matter if the mother should suffer for one mistake, should the child be slaughtered for being innocent?The question is this. Is a 10 week old foetus a child or a cluster of cells?

and don't tell me special circumstances like rape. there is a 24 hour pill they will give you for free if you have been raped. What you are saying is that the raped women has to come forward about the rape to get the pill. With rape being a horribly unreported crime as it is, I can't see that much happening. A raped women may also not be in the frame of mind to think about that in the timeframe the 24 hour pill is needed after the rape.

people are always saying a woman has a choice of what to do with her own body. yeah, she did have the choice. she had the choice not to fuck around. Unless she was raped. Or abused.

she had the choice to use protection. Condoms break. Women have gotten pregnant while on the pill. Women medically sterilised or given hysterectomies have fallen pregnant due to botched procedures.

she had the choice to get the 24 hour pill.Not always an option, particulary in the case of rape (see above) or when the timeframe has passed. Eg a couple use protection and the protection fails. By the time the pregnancy is known about, the window is gone.

she had the choice to set it up for adoption. Which means carrying the infant to term. Tell a raped women that she needs to bring the product of rape, that contains the genes of the man who raped her, to term. Tell her to ruin her body further after she has been defiled. Please do.

There are many reason why adoption isn't feasible, why bringing a child to term isn't feasible for many women.

its just a word we use to describe murdering an unborn child so our consciences don't suffer from guilt.
If women don't suffer from the guilt of it, why are their numerous councelling options available from women who have abortions?

eyez0nme

09-08-2005, 05:27 AM

When is a child alive?

When the sperm and egg meet?

Or, is it, when it is born?

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:28 AM

The question is this. Is a 10 week old foetus a child or a cluster of cells?

I say cluster of cells, personally.

RDClip

09-08-2005, 05:34 AM

Abortion is a really hard thing to discuss.

For one we really haven't agreed on where life begins. That when a collection of cells become a person. The Catholic church says that life starts right when the man ejackulates, thus masterbation is a sin. (then most men are really goin to hell) Some people think life begins when the fetus(sp?) gains conscienceness. This is also a really hard thing to pin point that moment.

I'll give you an analogy for abortion that makes sense. (keep in mind that this only applies when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant via that means.) This comes from a paper I once read written by some philisopher. (it's been about a year so I may fudge up a few parts)

There this famous violinest. He has a devoted number of fans that form a group called the Classical Music Society. So, this famous violinest comes down with some fictional disease.

So the CMS searches far and wide and finds that YOU are the only one that can save him. However, to be able to save him your inners have to be connected to his for nine months. Now, the CMS knows that you won't agree to this so they kidnap you and hook you up to him without your consent. So, in this case are you obligated to be hooked up to this man for 9 months of your life?

So, you are the mother that has been raped and the violinest is the fetus growing inside you. Do you have to keep it alive if you were attached to it without your consent?

So there one nice little thought experiment dealing with a very specific circumstance.

Me, personally, I from Canada where it is legal and I have no problem with it. Though if some slut is getting 4 abortions a year, there's a problem.

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 05:50 AM

Self-awareness? You're giving babies too much credit. Infanticide will cause no harm to the mother, if it was socially acceptable there would be little psychological harm, and if you think the baby has any concept of the deeper philisophical implications of that decision, I'd love to hear why.

I don't support infanticide, but at the same time, by your reasoning, it should be equivalently acceptable (with the self-awareness/life-awareness as a sticking point which I'd like you to talk more about). Babies at that age have no memories they will carry to adulthood, very little sensation regarding pain, and otherwise don't seem to be differentiated from fetuses to me other than the whole arbitrary actually having been born thing...

Agreed.

Abortion is indeed a tough topic to discuss.

But I feel that if you already have your ethics and morality solidified in certain areas such as how you value life, how you value choice, individualism, and understanding a situation, then at least you know where you stand.

Here I quote my assignment. :P

Yes, I do believe that mothers should have the right to get a fetus aborted. A FETUS – which is considered the stage where it starts to respond to stimuli, when it is considered to be a living human. I feel the mother should have this choice because sometimes she doesn’t have control over her situation, such cases as rape or incest. I also feel that the mother should have this choice because she knows best – even if you are young and was careless, you should be able to have that choice because you know you are not capable of dealing with or bringing up the child – it’s unfair to let the child be born, only put him or her up for adoption.

Sometimes the child grows up with emotional or personality issues because of this. If the mom feels it’s better to abort while the child has little or no complicated thoughts on matters of right or wrong (inside the womb), or isn’t even impressed with the world yet, then I feel she should do it.

Quite honestly, I don’t consider a child to have any rights or watnot until it is born. This would be a bad analogy to society, but it’s like taking a sheet of paper randomly from a pile, that happens to be blank, and throwing it in the garbage. Because it’s blank, the destruction of it doesn’t harm the rest of the story, nor does it add anything to it. I read in one of my textbooks about the pro-life and pro-choice stances; I can definitely say I’m leaning more on pro-choice. Overall, it just seems wrong to me to have to force the mother to go through with something that she doesn’t want to – even though abortion may cause harm to her – but again, it’s her body, and I’m sure she is well aware of the potential consequences. On top of that, I still stand firm on believing that females have absolute right and control over their bodies, and until the conceptus is born, then no one can say otherwise. I feel she is the one that has to deal with the emotions, the physicals, and the psychological – and it’s her choice in which way she wants to deal with it, whether it’s through chancing it out with abortion or going through with the birth.

MeneerDijk

09-08-2005, 05:57 AM

Abortion, always a tricky subject. Personally the idea of abortion makes me uneasy purely because of emotional reasons. If i got a girl pregnant by accident i don't know if i would have the foetus aborted. But i feel strongly against deciding for others. It should be the choice of the parents, and ultimately the mother.

I don't regard it as murder when the foetus can't sustain life on it's own, or with a little help from medical science.

Pierrot le Fou

09-08-2005, 06:02 AM

So if responding to stimuli is the criteria, is it okay to kill someone in a coma?

Expert Insomniac

09-08-2005, 06:15 AM

I another woman who is pro-choice, but doesn't really like abortion. Like Pierrot was saying... it's necessary. It's unfortunate, but it's necessary. I hope that I never need one, but it comforts me to know that it's there.

The fact that methods of birth control can fail (even the morning after pill can fail) have been covered, so I will address other points. First of all, if someone is raped, most likely they will not be thinking clearly. I know simply from my experiences with sexual assault that afterwards, you're not thinking clearly. There's shame and dirtiness and guilt and a whole slew of emotions. The worst thing a rape victim can do after getting raped is to shower; it washes away the evidence. However, this is the first thing most rape victims do. By the time it occurs to them to get the morning after pill, if they're even ready to admit they're raped, it may be too late.

Pro-lifers came to my school last year and put up posters of dismembered body parts. It all looked very horrifying, stretched out over six feet tall, until I noticed something: the barely formed arm was placed on a dime. A dime. I've stepped on things bigger than that. This actually has little to do with anything, but I felt like sharing.

The main thing that gets me is stem cell research. Stem cells could be used to help so many people, and yet research into them is illegal in the US (at least, last time I heard about it.) Now, abortion is legal, and will remain that way. We may not know when a baby becomes human and not just cells, but we know people who are alive are alive. So why not help them out? I know if I was raped, and became pregnant, I would take some comfort from knowing that my aborted fetus was helping someone else. It's win win. The woman doesn't have to carry the child, and whether she had completely unprotected sex and should no better or was raped, whatever happened can be turned into good by helping save another person's life.

And in terms of adoption... my friend got put into foster care when I was in eleventh grade, and she was in tenth. She went into foster care because her father, who had previously molested her, was on heroin (her mother was long gone) and couldn't take care of her. After she had been in the system for just a month, we were trying to get her back with her dad, because the system is that awful. I would rather kill a baby than subject it to the horrors of foster care. I know there are good families, and caring social workers... but there are not nearly enough. Never let anyone give their child up for adoption, or put their kid in foster care. Find alternative means. There are some things worse than death.

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 06:22 AM

So if responding to stimuli is the criteria, is it okay to kill someone in a coma?

The difference between someone in a coma as to a conceptus that responds to stimuli is different.

Someone in a coma would be someone who had already lived part of their lives, and have made an impact in society (family, friends, associations, etc).

Their pages had something written on it.

But as someone else had mentioned:

Our entire raced is based on the choices we make, and the consequences of those choices. We, as humans, screw up constantly. If a murderer can make amends after 25 years in prison, why can't a woman have an abortion? The criminal gets a second lease on life, why doesn't the woman? We can't bring back the murderer's victim, nor can we restore the fetus. What if's, such as a baby's life or a victim's life, don't do anyone any good.

Quartermaster

09-08-2005, 06:23 AM

Pierrot le Fou

09-08-2005, 06:29 AM

So then a useless loner with no friends and no productive contributions to society goes into a coma in his lodge in the woods. Is it okay to kill him?

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 06:47 AM

We don't have to kill him, because we don't know he's there.

But assuming that we do know, how would anyone know that he's been in a coma? He would die by himself. No one is at fault.

I don't see the relation of this instance to abortion.

Expert Insomniac

09-08-2005, 07:03 AM

I imagine a solution to foster care would be to relax the requirements to adopt, thus allowing "competition" between homes that honestly want to adopt but don't fit whatever requirement. But honestly, I'm talking out of hearsay.

Actually, the main problem is that people get paid to be foster families. And pretty much anyone can be a foster parent, because group homes are so overstocked (and really poorly run.) So a lot of people will become foster parents for the cash, completely neglect the kid and sometimes do far worse things, (servanthood, abuse, rape), and the kid has practically no say. And anything the kid does is held against them. My friend struggled because if she got bad grades, it was 'look how troubled she is! She needs foster care to get her away from her family problems!' but if she got good grades, it was 'look how much good foster care has done for her! Staying in the program is improving her education!'

Howver, I should shut up about this, because it is pretty off topic. If anyone wants more of my opinion/information I learned from my friend, feel free to PM me.

Varia

09-08-2005, 07:07 AM

God has a plan for us. For me, for you, for that guy over there. Yes, all of us. That is what I am told. Some people argue that this baby that has been aborted may have been the next Martin Luther King Jr. or maybe would have come up with a cure for some disease or another. Well, like I said, God has a plan for us all, and that aborted baby's plan was to get aborted. Oh, but no! God did have a plan for that baby! He was supposed to grow up and become a person just like any of us! He was just cut down in his tracks by some little girl... Why is it that God, according to so many people, only plans good things? Why is it that everything is supposed to work out happily ever after? It's an excuse and/or an insecurity in one's own faith. Jim, you lost your business, your wife's been cheating on you, and now that I think about it, you still owe me $50 from poker night. But cheer up, God's got a plan for you. He did this for a reason. Do you really think so? Going back to about aborted babies; are they aborted because that is what is supposed to happen to the baby itself, or are they aborted in correllation with the mother's own, separate path?

All of the religious anti-abortion stuff I have seen is bogus. it contradicts itself and is based on things like it's written here that abortion is bad so we can't do it end of story case closed you're going to hell bye. Religion should have nothing to do with abortion.
________
Yamaha Raptor 700R History (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_Raptor_700R)

Invictus

09-08-2005, 07:13 AM

The problem is that religion is inextricably tied into the equation. If you believe God is the author of life, then abortion is spitting in God's face. Conversely, if you believe that God doesn't exist, then there's absolutely no reason why abortion is morally wrong.

Expert Insomniac

09-08-2005, 07:23 AM

I'm not sure if religion necessarily has to interfere with abortion. Specifically, the Christian religion, which I happen to know a lot about since I went to church until I was 14, and my dad is... he's Ned Flanders. Well, in terms of religious devotion that is.

Here's my opinion on it: God is omnipotent. He knows EVERYTHING that ever was, ever is, ever will be, and so on. Although we do have free will, he knows ahead of time what choices we have to make.

So God already knows if you're going to have an abortion. If you also believe that each soul gets one chance on earth... is God really going to place a soul in a body that he knows will never be born? Of course not! Why would he bother? You're getting the abortion whether there's a soul or not, and the soul will have absolutely no influence or you or anyone else.

I dunno... it makes sense to me. But I might be missing something.

Nessa

09-08-2005, 07:24 AM

I don't like abortion and wouldn't have it myself unless I felt there was no other way. I can understand it if there's a chance the mother will die in pregnancy or that the child will have severe physical and/or mental problems, but it shouldn't be used as a method of birth control like some teenage sluts think it is.

Never let anyone give their child up for adoption, or put their kid in foster care. Find alternative means. There are some things worse than death.

I don't think adoption comes anywhere near being worse than death. I know a girl who's lived her whole life with her adopted family and she also knows her birth mother. She doesn't really like her birth mother and feels that she wouldn't have been a good mother. She prefers her adopted family much more. I'm pretty sure she's glad she was adopted and given a chance at life with a family who wants her than aborted by someone who didn't care.

Kaji

09-08-2005, 07:28 AM

Likewise I know people who have been adopted and quite prefer being living and breathing to the alternative. Personally, I figure it's better than killing them because as long as you're still alive there's the chance to improve your life.

Kustom

09-08-2005, 07:32 AM

Abortion is a really hard thing to discuss.

For one we really haven't agreed on where life begins.

Life? Who cares about life? All of the pro-life people, do they think twice before they swat a fly with much more complexity than a human foetus? Life is not the matter, it's deception. What matters is our definition of a human being. To me, a human being is a person with the ability to think and keep memories, and also a potential to become more. Every spermatozoid has the potential to become a human being, yet nobody will claim masturbation is genocide (hopefully), so potentiality is not all there is to it. There is evidence that consciousness and memory can start before a baby is born, but not in the first trimestre like Pooka said.

I don't even disagree much with Pierrot's talk about infants. An infant doesn't have much consciousness to speak of and no memories. Until he turns 3, he will be less smart than the chimpanzees routinely killed in experiments for your skincare products. Why does a baby's life matter? The only reason I can think of is because human beings are emotionally attached to them, chiefly the parents. But when a foetus is in a woman's womb, well, she's the only person that should make a decision, with the possibility of the father having a say as well. Nobody else has any right to interfere.

I strongly believe that it is best for the child to be born in a welcoming and stable environment. The huge majority of the numerous fucked up people I know became so because of family trouble, and I think nothing is more important than raising children in the best possible environment for them. If you wish an unwanted child to be born, it's like wishing that a baby that would be terminally handicapped be born, for the sake of adding one more human to our already crowded planet for a short, painful journey.

Expert Insomniac

09-08-2005, 07:45 AM

Okay, to be fair, adoption does turn out well a lot of the time. The main problem is that most adopting couples want babies, so if you make it to even toddler stage... there's a good chance you'll be stuck in foster care the rest of your life. Which is, again, not a hell I would want to see anyone subjected to.

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 07:55 AM

Life? Who cares about life? All of the pro-life people, do they think twice before they swat a fly with much more complexity than a human foetus? Life is not the matter, it's deception. What matters is our definition of a human being. To me, a human being is a person with the ability to think and keep memories, and also a potential to become more. Every spermatozoid has the potential to become a human being, yet nobody will claim masturbation is genocide (hopefully), so potentiality is not all there is to it. There is evidence that consciousness and memory can start before a baby is born, but not in the first trimestre like Pooka said.

I don't even disagree much with Pierrot's talk about infants. An infant doesn't have much consciousness to speak of and no memories. Until he turns 3, he will be less smart than the chimpanzees routinely killed in experiments for your skincare products. Why does a baby's life matter? The only reason I can think of is because human beings are emotionally attached to them, chiefly the parents. But when a foetus is in a woman's womb, well, she's the only person that should make a decision, with the possibility of the father having a say as well. Nobody else has any right to interfere.

I strongly believe that it is best for the child to be born in a welcoming and stable environment. The huge majority of the numerous fucked up people I know became so because of family trouble, and I think nothing is more important than raising children in the best possible environment for them. If you wish an unwanted child to be born, it's like wishing that a baby that would be terminally handicapped be born, for the sake of adding one more human to our already crowded planet for a short, painful journey.

I think you did a wonderful job in taking it right out of my mouth.

RDClip

09-08-2005, 08:41 AM

I don't even disagree much with Pierrot's talk about infants. An infant doesn't have much consciousness to speak of and no memories. Until he turns 3, he will be less smart than the chimpanzees routinely killed in experiments for your skincare products. Why does a baby's life matter? The only reason I can think of is because human beings are emotionally attached to them, chiefly the parents. But when a foetus is in a woman's womb, well, she's the only person that should make a decision, with the possibility of the father having a say as well. Nobody else has any right to interfere.
Well, it's a little thing called spiecism. Basically we humans think we are somehow special. So, it's okay to to whatever the hell we want to animals, but humans are supposed to be treated differently.

Humans have always liked to think we were special. Damn the first bloody book of the bible gets into it.

Kass

09-08-2005, 10:47 AM

So many faulty assumptions, so little time.

i detest abortion. i think its murder. it doesn't matter if the mother should suffer for one mistake, should the child be slaughtered for being innocent? for being incapable of defending itself?

So are the mentally retarded (sorry, I've forgotten the PC word du jour), children, elderly, some disabled people and anyone koshed on the head from behind and rendered unconscious, yet NO ONE gets so emotionally wrapped up in defending these people as people do condemning abortion. In fact, there are still groups around the world that think that high functioning, barely retarded should be sterilized, removing their reproductive rights all together.

and don't tell me special circumstances like rape. there is a 24 hour pill they will give you for free if you have been raped.

You're assuming that the victim is able to get to a doctor on her own or found within 24 hours. What about incest victims? Twelve-year-olds cannot consent to any medical procedure, including receiving a voluntary, non-critical prescription. Only critical, life threatening injuries and conditions can be treated without parental consent. Pregnancy doesn't count. In most states, you can't do that until you're 16. Some have lowered it to 15.

Hell, the hospital can't even set a broken arm or give a kid tylenol without the parents or legal guardian signing off. That's why every year I sign about a dozen different forms for school authorizing them to make urgent care decisions for my daughter in my stead. This way at least the hospital can give her a tylenol until I get there.

You're also assuming that RU-486 only prevents pregnancy and does not terminate one. Conception can happen within minutes of intercourse, depending on where along in the menstrual cycle the woman is and how well the sperm can swim. If conception has occured (say the woman takes the pill at the tail end of he 24-hour window), then RU-486 terminates the pregnancy. It ABORTS the pregnancy. Same thing, different method.

You are also wrongly assuming that all women are medically able to take RU-486. There are many women for whom that is not an option because of pre-existing medical conditions and reactions to certain drugs. Or do you think she should attempt suicide and take the pill anyway? Of course, assuming she survives, it is possible she just aborted a pregnancy.

people are always saying a woman has a choice of what to do with her own body. yeah, she did have the choice. she had the choice not to fuck around. she had the choice to use protection. she had the choice to get the 24 hour pill. she had the choice to set it up for adoption.

No, not always. Rape is not a choice. RU-486 often is abortion. Incest is not a choice. Nearly all cases where incest results in a pregnancy are not discovered within a month or two, let alone 24 hours. Incest is not a choice.

Protection fails. My daughter is an "Oh shit, the condom broke" baby. Of course, when that happened, I was a gainfully employed, 22-year-old college graduate, not a 14-year-old kid with no independent means of support. So please, meet me, one of the 1% of all condom users who get one that fails and results in a pregnancy.

abortion is a selfish way to punish someone else for your own damn mistakes. its just a word we use to describe murdering an unborn child so our consciences don't suffer from guilt.

*IF* it is used solely as birth control, then yes, it is a selfish, irresponsible act, but you can't tell me that forcing a child not physically ready to bear children to carry and give birth to her father's/brother's/uncle's child is in ANY WAY right. Or a rape victim found too late to take RU-486.

These things do happen, more often than you apparently care to consider.

That said, any woman who uses abortion solely as birth control needs a 2'x4' to the head.

koku

09-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Kustom

09-08-2005, 01:36 PM

JudoPorkChop

09-08-2005, 01:45 PM

(Sees this for what it is... responding anyway)

I have no problem with abortion. The act, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, done in the first trimester. the ONLY time anything later than that should be considered is if the life of the mother is in danger. Even then, serious considerations need be made, because a late-term abortion is a horrifying thing for a doctor to endure. I've seen the process, and it's not for the faint of heart. It's not even for the strong of heart.

It's the personal responsibility portion of the equation that bugs the hell out of me. I know two women who have had abortions not because they were raped, not because they weren't capable of raising a child, but merely because they didn't wish to be pregnant. That gets me every time. My sister is going to make me an uncle later this year because of equipment failure, and she got pregnant. She could have had an abortion, but she looks at it as part of the responsibilities of having sex, so she will raise the child. I know I'm repeating myself. Even if it really isn't my choice to make, I don't like abortion being used as convenience.

Kass

09-08-2005, 01:46 PM

I thought this was simple? If she was raped or protection failed, sure. If not, that's just beiing selfish.

And i'm sorry, but just because you are too afraid to admit that you got raped, that isn't a feasable reason a baby, child, cluster of cells, and/or whatever else should die.

Did I say "too afraid to admit that you got raped" (a rather uniformed statement to begin with) anywhere whatsoever in that post? Not every woman even knows she got raped. Rohipnol and GHB anyone? Contrary to popular belief, you can't always tell the next day that you had sex. Unless he's really big or really violent, there's generally no lasting sensation. Not every woman is able to get up and walk away or even is physically able to say she got raped after an attack.

Annie

09-08-2005, 01:55 PM

I'm Pro-choice. Just like I'm Pro-natural disasters that wipe out half the population of certain areas. We don't need more people in the world that can't support themselves or their children. There's so many kids already waiting to be adopted and most of them never will be. I personally would never get an abortion, I'd be lucky if I even got pregnant. I think abortion is a good nice way of controlling the worlds population. I can think of a few people that I wish were aborted.

I think they should give you one of those cards that they stamp each time you come to an abortion clinic. After the 3rd or 4th abortion you get a free tube-tying!

Kustom

09-08-2005, 02:25 PM

I am for aborption being a woman's right because it's nobody else's damn business, and I don't see people who campaign so hard to save the "lives" of a bunch of non-sentient cells care much about the lives of actual people they sent abroad on useless wars or they let starve in Africa.

However, what disturbs me is the situation here in Japan. One girl out of 4 actually had an aborption, and the reason is that this is nearly the only birth-control they use, appart from the occasional condom (my own personnal rate of failure with Japanese condoms: 33%. I don't care what it says on the box!). The pill was forbidden in Japan until 2 years ago, and is still considered for sluts only (Japanese doctors will make you fill like it every bit of the way). I did my bit of research and it appears that this situation does not in fact come from a particular Japanese cultural trait, but simply from very heavy lobbying by the medical corporation. You see, aborption costs a lot of money in Japan (150 000 yens, about 1500 bucks). Pregnancy costs much more. What a cash cow it is for Japanese hospitals, eh? When I found out about this, it made me sick to my stomach...

Now if you're serious about your pro-life beliefs, and you wanna get pissed, you could start in Japan?

Trump

09-08-2005, 02:46 PM

I have to agree with the second part of JPC's post. I think abortion should be a last resort, and it isn't even a religious issue for me. I'm a huge fan of nature and its flowing currents and blended actions, but abortion is an unnatural act that disrupts this cycle. People really should consider what they are doing before they decide to have sex; they should analyze and accept the risks. To me, there are good reasons to have an abortion, rape being one of them. If you can't afford a child you should use protection or just not have sex. If you are still in school and don't want to drop out for a child, use protection or don't have sex. For someone to get an abortion just because they don't want to accept the responsibility of a child strikes me as one of the most irresponsible acts possible. People don't learn from their mistakes unless there are consequences.

koku

09-08-2005, 05:36 PM

Did I say "too afraid to admit that you got raped" (a rather uniformed statement to begin with) anywhere whatsoever in that post? Not every woman even knows she got raped. Rohipnol and GHB anyone? Contrary to popular belief, you can't always tell the next day that you had sex. Unless he's really big or really violent, there's generally no lasting sensation. Not every woman is able to get up and walk away or even is physically able to say she got raped after an attack.

That was towards someone else. Someone else here mentioned reasons the day after pill shouldn't be the only alternative(one of them being, some women can't confess in 24hours).

What you are saying is that the raped women has to come forward about the rape to get the pill. With rape being a horribly unreported crime as it is, I can't see that much happening. A raped women may also not be in the frame of mind to think about that in the timeframe the 24 hour pill is needed after the rape.

That's what I was refering to.

I'm just talking about abortion in general so throw the 24 hour pill idea out the window. I just feel unless a women got pregnant against her will(see rape or that x% protection didn't work), then abortion is taking the life of someone/something that could have been avoided--let's not argue over what counts as a life or not.

Certian things can be avoided; they have a contraceptive section at places for a reason.

I guess I just have a strict viewpoint on this. I feel if someone wants to gamble with their life, that's their issue. But when you start to bring others into your mistakes, that's when I draw the line.

setrict

09-08-2005, 05:41 PM

Abortion is killing, plain and simple. Not all killing is Murder.

Abortion as birth control is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Killing as a matter of convenience disgusts me.

I would rather kill a baby than subject it to the horrors of foster care. I know there are good families, and caring social workers... but there are not nearly enough. Never let anyone give their child up for adoption, or put their kid in foster care. Find alternative means. There are some things worse than death.

Let the baby decide as it grows up. Once the child is capable of understanding death, let them decide whether they want to live, or want to die. What gives you the right to make that decision for them? Give them an explanation and two shiny buttons to choose from. Live. Die. Does that sound inhumane to you? Me too, but it seems far less evil than choosing for them.

As for abortion from rape, I hate to be cliche... but.... two wrongs don't make a right, an evil act can’t be corrected with more evil, etc. Is it ironic that most pro-choice people do not support the death penalty, but most pro-life people do?

In defense of the life of the mother. Here I think killing is justified. Sad, but justified.

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 06:40 PM

CrystalThrall

09-08-2005, 07:26 PM

First of all, unless you're the father and are in good standing with the woman you impregnated, you have absolutely NO right to say anything about whether or not an abortion is warranted. It irritates me to no end to see men who have no relation whatsoever to the women getting abortions saying stuff about "Oh, abortion is wrong, you shouldn't get it!" Stay the HELL out of other people's business!! No one made you the representative for humanity's moral and ethical standpoint so you have NO say in it.

As it's been said previously, the decision for an abortion is the decision of the mother and father (special circumstances not included - rape, abuse, etc.) ONLY with the ultimate decision being that of the mother because it's HER BODY. The only reason why the issue of abortion is even controversial is because there are people who are so against it that they meddle in the affair of other people's private lives. Mind your own damn business...

Pfalzer

09-08-2005, 07:41 PM

Well if i were to be any burden to my mother because of me being birthed i would rather die and let her live her life as she will. NO point being there if no one wants you there. Besides its a fetus an organism its a child blah blah blah its no different than any other animal at tht stage its not thinking or cognitive its fucking germating and growing into a fucking human its not quite there yet so its not a problem to get rid of "it" why do i say it because it is a fucking "IT". SO i have no problems about abortion.
24 hour pill for rape so wht do u keep a bottle nearby just incase u get raped? Idiot...

LJustus

09-08-2005, 07:48 PM

I feel some of us aren't being realistic. You simplify matters too much. If I was put in a position where I had a choice to abort or not,and I read this, I would be so pissed. So so pissed...

*calms down*
Why would you be pissed? Unless it was a rape, you are to blame (as well as the father).

Perhaps not "to blame" but "responsible".

Pfalzer

09-08-2005, 07:50 PM

If you are already thinking of aborting you shouldnt have the child so abort it... thts all i can say.

Deadhead

09-08-2005, 08:17 PM

I am pro-choice. I am also pro-infanticide.
I think pro-choice has been defended very well in this thread and I dont have much more to say about it. Infanticide is a little harder to justify, but when you look at the developemental level of an infant I think it becomes clear. Infants do not feel attachment to other human beings until they are 10 months old.
They do not have feelings, They do not have thoughts. They are parasites. The only reason people think so highly of them is because it is genetically encoded in us to do so. Propagation of the species and all that.

ATTN: Going off topic a bit now, dont read on unless you want to hear about my beliefs

I dont know whether there is a god or not, but I am 100% sure there is not a
benevolent god. Why? Because there is so much suffering in the world. I think that any god who really cared for humanity would, even if he wasnt to intervene directly, make it so things arent so damned hard. Like the recent Hurricane Katrina. A benelovent god could have stopped that and saved alot of people from suffering. Why would a benevolent god allow drought and famine? So people like to justify it by saying that god uses suffering 'too test people'. Thats bullshit. They are cruel tests, and a loving god wouldnt do that. Why would a benevolent god create things like AIDS? That exist only to cause suffering.
When people ask me if I am an atheist I usually say yes. Mostly because this stuff would be too hard to explain, and partly because 'you do believe in god' implies a benevolent god. If there is a god, hes a sadist plain and simple.

RDClip

09-08-2005, 08:43 PM

ATTN: Going off topic a bit now, dont read on unless you want to hear about my beliefs

I dont know whether there is a god or not, but I am 100% sure there is not a
benevolent god. Why? Because there is so much suffering in the world. I think that any god who really cared for humanity would, even if he wasnt to intervene directly, make it so things arent so damned hard. Like the recent Hurricane Katrina. A benelovent god could have stopped that and saved alot of people from suffering. Why would a benevolent god allow drought and famine? So people like to justify it by saying that god uses suffering 'too test people'. Thats bullshit. They are cruel tests, and a loving god wouldnt do that. Why would a benevolent god create things like AIDS? That exist only to cause suffering.
When people ask me if I am an atheist I usually say yes. Mostly because this stuff would be too hard to explain, and partly because 'you do believe in god' implies a benevolent god. If there is a god, hes a sadist plain and simple.
Well, you spotted the paradox of God. If he is so benevolent, why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? There is one of two answers to that either:1) he is all benevolent, but he is not omnipotent or 2) he is omnipotent but not all benevolent.

Do I believe in god or any higher power? Hell no. However I do believe that an infant has some mental capacity and should live. A first trimester fetus' brain is not developed, thus it cannot feel anything.

I am a Utilitarian, so I base my morality around what will bring the maximum happiness. It's really hard to say if abortion will bring the the maximum happiness for all parties involved.

However, it will not bring the 'slippery slope' that fanatics think legal abortion will bring. They preach 'culture of life' bullshit, so Canada has legal abortion, does that make our's a 'culture of death'?

Kass

09-08-2005, 08:43 PM

Topic: There is no good reason to get pissed about a discussion like this. If you take it that personally, don't open the topic. No solutions, good, bad or otherwise, will come about to the abortion issue without discussion.

Abortion is an ugly and imperfect answer to an ugly and imperfect problem. If you can come up with a pretty and perfect solution, then you'd be rich or divine or both. It might not be the right answer; it might not be the wrong one either. It is NOT, however, anyone else's business. Not unless you are going to live their lives for them.

Should rape victims have to endure nine months of mental and emotional torture whilst pregnant in addition to being raped in the first place? My answer and your answer really are irrelevant. All that matters is what the answer is for that person.

Off-topic: Not that I am advocating or disputing anything you say, but God is all knowing and all seeing according to the Bible, not all controlling. It isn't the same. He gave man free will and man does a pretty darn good job of screwing things up without divine assistance, whatever divinity you so choose.

Besides, benevolence does not preclude allowing the natural order of things progress as it should. A benevolent being has compassion and will assist when things go bad, not interfere and prevent those things from happening, especially when a lot of it is beyond control. Most parents are benevolent, but that doesn't mean they prevent every skinned knee, shield them from grief over every dead pet, or stop the consequences of bad behavior.

God's will or no, Katrina would happen anyway. You can't do anything about the weather, save respect its power. From a purely scientific point of view, things like this are necessary and inevitable. Blights control forest growth. Disease reduces overly plentiful animal populations. Storms develop out of existing weather patterns. That is life and no one, not even God (Christian or otherwise) promised it would be easy.

koku

09-08-2005, 08:50 PM

I could see why pro-choice people get defensive towards the pro-life viewpoint. I can see how you view it as intruding on something that most men and us here have nothing to do about. But you have to look at a few things objectively: it or not, you're destroying a potential life; if it's not rape or failed equipment, your failure to be responsible outweighs any sympathy that's deserved; Also, just because there are people dying on the other side of the world doesn't make it "none of our business." As humans and people, I think we have the right to consider any situation that's harmfull to others.

RDClip

09-08-2005, 08:56 PM

As humans and people, I think we have the right to consider any situation that's harmfull to others.
'Right' not 'Obligation'

Pfalzer

09-08-2005, 08:56 PM

Its all due to point of view. I dont consider it human life or a child during the earlier stages of development and safer abortion times.Others think "as soon as the time of conception or etc" its human life. Then u have to define life. Which is anything carbon or anythign tht fears its own death. The fetus or whtever it is doe snot have the ability to fear its death it might not even have developed cognitive or spacial capacities let alone a functional brain. So i think in the earlier ages if you give even an inkling of thought to an abortion you should abort becuase for tht inkling of time you considered not having a child. I don know im pro choice. Im for abortion if my mom wanted me aborted than she not worth me being her child. there are other times and other events tht will happen. Its not the end of the world if we kill little masses of developing organs and nerves...

Deadhead

09-08-2005, 09:11 PM

But then why would God create humans, knowing that we would suffer?

And if God doesnt have power over something as simple as nature, is he really worth worshipping?

Trump

09-08-2005, 09:33 PM

There is no answer to the question of when something is alive, so I don't even think about it in those terms. I just think of the harmony of nature, is it natural to do? Abortion is completely unnatural. Contraception and things that revolve around the time of conception are basically cutting off one path (to conceive or not) and that's more natural than ripping out an unborn child. But in the situation of rape the act itself was unnatural and would not normally have occurred. In that situation, to me, abortion can be justified.

hapacheese

09-08-2005, 09:37 PM

So, then does the woman have to prove she was raped in order to get an abortion? And, well, rape happens in nature. How are you defining "natural," anyway?

Chelsums

09-08-2005, 09:38 PM

While I do not support abortion, I support it being legal. Simply because I want the women who do want one to have it safely and not use... a coat hanger or iron or something *shudder*

RDClip

09-08-2005, 10:27 PM

But then why would God create humans, knowing that we would suffer?

And if God doesnt have power over something as simple as nature, is he really worth worshipping?
I'd really not get into a discussion of the origins of belief in a higher power here, but I'll give you my interpretation.

All religions were basically created for similar purposes. 1) a system of incentive based morality(eg. do good, go to heaven. Do bad go to hell) 2) a way to explain things they didn't understand.

The term 'fear of God' is quite adequit to describe his existence. He is an overbearing father figure always watching you and if you do something bad or against him, you are fucked. But, if you are a nice little obediant kid, he will reward you with a nice place were you will live forever in happiness.

I don't need that.

God was created for these reaseons are, thus are the little (or huge gaping) plotholes in the stories. But the churches are nice little convienient excuses to explain these. Really when you see all the problems with the bible and you realize that Judeo-Christianity evolved the same way as long since dead religions, you'll see that it is all crap.

Mojinr

09-08-2005, 11:11 PM

I am, personally, against abortions. Not all "It's horrible" "Or you murders" type but I'm against from the stand point of thinking of as ridding yourself of a piece of your own body. It's not. It might be attached to a woman but it has the potential if nutured and cared for to become a life of it's own. You want to remove a finger? Fine. Nose? Fine. None of those can get up, eat, make friends, speak, or become president by themselves despite all the nuture and care you give them.

However, I also, wholeheartedly, believe some women just shouldn't be mothers. At the time of their pregancy, if ever at all. Also in some situations it may be better to have an abortion. Most commonly, rape.

So, in the end, I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion.

Animeband

09-08-2005, 11:13 PM

I don't like abortion, but for different reasons. Mainly because 1) "Sanctity of life" isn't as simple a concept as you think and 2) it opens up too many legal problems.

Legalistically, what gives me the right to "abort" a child? Is it because my body is my property alone and I can do with it as I will?

Well if you believe that your body is your property and we should treat it as such, can I sue people for making money off of research using my aborted fetus as a specimen? How about taking cancer cells from my body and researching them? Can I sue them then? Can I sell my organs? Should a marketplace for body organs be socially acceptable? Exactly how far should my rights go with regards as what I can do with my body? What kind of social policy should we adopt here?

Those are the kinds of questions that blew out of Roe v. Wade, a lot of them still not really answered today and they have caused nothing but trouble for the American legal community.

Arvynia

09-08-2005, 11:18 PM

I can be pissed if I want to. The only thing is that I don't act upon it to be an ass about it.

Well, all I have left to say is that: each to their own. I was brought up and molded to what I am, how I view life, my ethics and morality on certain topics. I know both sides have their pros and cons - I've already explained mine. But as a women, it just makes me a tad angry that other people seem to simplify the situation and drag other examples into the topic, such as other lives, as compared to a conceptus.

But yes. My stance is prochoice - ultimately, it's the women who have to deal with the physical, psychological, and emotions of going through this. People aren't perfect. People make dumb mistakes. Girls make dumb mistakes - but I don't think they should be "punished" by it by having an unwanted baby - it would be bad enough for the baby already to be born in a world where their birth mother does not want them.

I'm sure just going through the process alone is emotional, physical, and psychologically stressing enough, not to mention there will be other people that are against her choice and are already making her go through the guilt of living with her choice. Either way, she's Fekked.

RDClip

09-08-2005, 11:18 PM

Animeband

09-08-2005, 11:25 PM

Those are all those 'slippery slope' ideas. As I said before Canada has legalized abortion (we have for more than 10 years) and we aren't a nation of crazys that don't hold life important. And we don't have any organ trade or anything else you mentioned.

Wrong, it isn't a theoretical slippery slope because IT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING even if you may not be aware of it.

Famous cases like Moore v. Regents or the ongoing battle of Washington University vs. Catalano occured because of this.

The US ruling on abortion is what currently allows females to donate eggs to be artificially inseminated for money. If you went to college, I'm sure you've seen those in the newspapers.

Currently there is no organ trade, but that is because of tradition of the organ donation comittee AND because the policy was to promote altruisim through freely given organs. Yet, many policy makers do in fact want to give organ markets a chance.

Yes, this is happening, all because the issue on abortion and the social policies behind it weren't too carefully thought out.

And FYI, Roe V. Wade was 1973, so we've had it for over 10 years too.

Nessa

09-08-2005, 11:25 PM

moo

09-08-2005, 11:32 PM

I am not against abortion, but I believe it is one of those hypocritical laws.
Such as, how does a person know the attachment a person has to their baby, ie- say someone kills someone on the way to an abortion clinic, does it count as if the baby was killed too? I mean It was going to die anyway....

RDClip

09-08-2005, 11:40 PM

Wrong, it isn't a theoretical slippery slope because IT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING even if you may not be aware of it.

Famous cases like Moore v. Regents or the ongoing battle of Washington University vs. Catalano occured because of this.

The US ruling on abortion is what currently allows females to donate eggs to be artificially inseminated for money. If you went to college, I'm sure you've seen those in the newspapers.

Currently there is no organ trade, but that is because of tradition of the organ donation comittee AND because the policy was to promote altruisim through freely given organs. Yet, many policy makers do in fact want to give organ markets a chance.

Yes, this is happening, all because the issue on abortion and the social policies behind it weren't too carefully thought out.

And FYI, Roe V. Wade was 1973, so we've had it for over 10 years too.

All because of abortion. We just made it illegal for a woman to be paid for being a surrogate womb. And yet abortion is still legal.

Animeband

09-08-2005, 11:51 PM

All because of abortion. We just made it illegal for a woman to be paid for being a surrogate womb. And yet abortion is still legal.

Clearly tell me then the social policy you believe should be behind abortion, since you obviously don't agree with the court's view that "it's my body, I have a right to do with it as I will because it's my property."

FYI, selling eggs to be artificially inseminated for money is still legal in the US and that is because of abortion.

scan2001

09-08-2005, 11:54 PM

I guess you can say that I'm pro-choice, it really up to the woman that having the abortion. You don't know the reason why she wants to do it. In the end she has to live with the choice she made. If your someone who decide to keep your baby that great. I just think it a situation that other people should stay out of.

ellie

09-09-2005, 12:17 AM

I am pro-choice.

I guess I was acting weird a few days ago, and eating weird food or something, and my mom suddenly asked me if I was pregnant. Like, way to jump to conclusions, mom. But anyway, it went pretty much like this, "Ellie. . .are you pregnant? If so, don't worry, I'll go with you to get an abortion, I'll hold your hand and pay for it". Seriously, that's a BIG jump to conclusions when your teenaged daughter is acting weird and eating pickles and ice cream. But apart from the huge jump to conclusions there, I thought it was kind of cool that my mom would respect my choice (were I to become pregnant, which I am DEFINITELY not planning on anytime soon, especially because we all know how horrible my choice in guys has been.)

But yes. Pro-choice. Were I to actually get pregnant, I don't know if I would get an abortion, but I believe it is the choice of each individual woman.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 12:22 AM

For those anti-abortion: Do you also believe that drinking/smoking/etc should be made illegal while pregnant? Do you think that *any* activity that could endanger the life of the "unborn child" should be made illegal?

For example, should it be illegal for an expectant mother to sit in a pool of ice cold water for hours? Should it be illegal for the mother to punch herself in the stomach repeatedly?

I ask these questions simply to try and see where the line is drawn between the mother's rights and the fetus' rights.

Deadhead

09-09-2005, 12:32 AM

When a baby is hurt, or neglected, it cries. It feels pain like any other human does. Does pain not constitute as a feeling? They feel hunger and feel tired as well, they just can't communicate any better to us because the world is new to them and it they need time to be able to learn, understand and grow. Many mammals need to take care of their young until they can go off on their own. The human species is no different.

Maybe they are capable of feeling pain, I really dont know. But most higher animals feel pain. It doesnt mean we dont treat them better. The same with hunger and fatigue. Tons of animals can feel those too, and they do not constitute a right to life.

Its a known fact that infants are not capable of higher emotions, and that they actually lag behind chimp developement until year 1. They are not some highly developed creature that just cant communicate, they are subhuman parasites who are developing into human beings.
Yeah, most mammals take care of their young. But alot of times males kill competing couples children (which I dont think we should do by the way).
Im just saying that in a mother with a newborn wants to smother than newborn or leave it on a mountainside, then Im not going to be the one to judge them.

koku

09-09-2005, 12:37 AM

For those anti-abortion: Do you also believe that drinking/smoking/etc should be made illegal while pregnant? Do you think that *any* activity that could endanger the life of the "unborn child" should be made illegal?

For example, should it be illegal for an expectant mother to sit in a pool of ice cold water for hours? Should it be illegal for the mother to punch herself in the stomach repeatedly?

I ask these questions simply to try and see where the line is drawn between the mother's rights and the fetus' rights.

I'll answer this:

Illiegal? NO.

Is it selfish, irresponsible, and from my perspective looked down upon? Yes.

To live in a society where it's ok for a teenage mother to kill off her unborn because she didn't a little but of planning......I'll stop repeating.

I think that's a pretty good compromise. Most pro-life people agree if it was rape, failed protection, or something out of the woman's control, it's their choice and business.

That's what I think. Now I have a pm to attend to.

EDIT: Who are we to decide if an infant deserves to live or die. To decide what his or her worth is? That's kind of creepy. Either way, it's going to grow into a human life; that should be enough to warrant it's worth.

hanacker

09-09-2005, 12:43 AM

I support abortion and infanticide (I'm not sure if there's an official definition but ~1 week is fine with me). The sanctity of human life is overrated.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 12:43 AM

However, you can't simply make a few exceptions like that, particularly when it's all based on circumstance. Did the mother take enough precaution when using birth control? Did she use the condom properly? If not, is it her fault?

Was the woman truly raped, or did she just say that to get the abortion? Does the mother then have to prove she was raped?

I understand that you will look down on the above situations, but we're not talking about personal views of other people... we're talking about the law that must be set. And, well, whether or not the mother is truly "killing" anything is still up for debate. If a fetus is alive... is not a sperm alive? Does it not have a life separate from the male body? Does that make masturbation = murder?

quick edit: I know the above questions all sound pedantic and whatnot, but these are questions that need to be answered in a black/white fashion before you can make a blanket law.

Kaji

09-09-2005, 12:50 AM

Regarding why God lets things happen, read the story of Job in the Old Testament if you feel inclined to pick up a Bible sometime.

As for abortion, I know a number of women who've had abortions because they panicked and felt it was the right thing to do at the time, but even years later have had suicidal thoughts stemming from guilt relating to it that they never could have foreseen at the time. Is that truly "less suffering for the mother?"

Animeband

09-09-2005, 12:57 AM

For those anti-abortion: Do you also believe that drinking/smoking/etc should be made illegal while pregnant? Do you think that *any* activity that could endanger the life of the "unborn child" should be made illegal?

For example, should it be illegal for an expectant mother to sit in a pool of ice cold water for hours? Should it be illegal for the mother to punch herself in the stomach repeatedly?

I ask these questions simply to try and see where the line is drawn between the mother's rights and the fetus' rights.

Those weren't my reasons for being against abortion.

Now to ask you, what is the social policy behind abortion? If you truly believe it's because "my body is my property to do with what I will", then why can I not sell my organs?

setrict

09-09-2005, 01:05 AM

For those anti-abortion: Do you also believe that drinking/smoking/etc should be made illegal while pregnant? Do you think that *any* activity that could endanger the life of the "unborn child" should be made illegal?

Within reason, yes. Of course I'm not willing to commit to the *any* bait :)
Anyone who unreasonably endangers the life of an unborn child should be held responsible. Drinking, smoking, and other recreational drugs are definately in the unreasonable category for me. A pregnant mother taking medication for a legitimate illness, where the drug might endanger the unborn child would be a reasonable risk so long as there were no other low-risk alternatives. A pregnant mother driving to work would be reasonable. A pregnant women driving a car in a demolition derby would not. Danger vs neccessity.

Creating a child should imply a reasonable level of responsibility from both the mother and father, and I have no problem with that being legally enforced. Unfortunately the mother is forced bear the entire burden if the father chooses to ignore his responsibility. I think this is a travesty, and ALL fathers should be required to shoulder as much of the responsibility of bearing and raising a child as humanly possible. Perhaps I'm a bit barbaric, but I'd gladly see the nads ripped from a man who refuses his share of the responsibility. Monkey grabs the peach and all that.

For example, should it be illegal for an expectant mother to sit in a pool of ice cold water for hours? Should it be illegal for the mother to punch herself in the stomach repeatedly?
Obviously these actions are not in the best interest of the mother or unborn child, and I would classify them as unreasonable endangerment. I realize that you are trying to show that by making abortions illegal, you will be forcing the mother to endanger herself further by using unsafe methods of aborting the birth. Let me answer that implied question with another: Should we provide legal drug inducement centers to cater to recreational drug users? Surely if we do not, they will be at greater risk than if we provided monitoring and close medical care. Are the risks of condoning an action and controlling it less than outlawing the action and losing a good portion of that control? I honestly don't know in this situation.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 01:09 AM

If I'm not mistaken, you haven't given specific reasons why you are against abortion per say, but rather, the contradictions you think the current laws introduce.

Currently, for the most part, US laws allow you to pretty much do anything to your own body, other than things that would cause death (drugs notwithstanding... that's a different discussion altogether). Yes, your own life is not your own.

Which is why this isn't about the "sanctity of life," but rather, is the fetus truly alive? Where does this life begin? Can we legally prevent the mother from doing things to her own body that do not cause her own death that would otherwise be legal if she weren't pregnant?

Animeband

09-09-2005, 01:13 AM

If I'm not mistaken, you haven't given specific reasons why you are against abortion per say, but rather, the contradictions you think the current laws introduce.

It is precisely this reason why I am against abortion. The social policy adopted behind abortion is terrible. It isn't like there aren't other options to abortion that don't create a piss poor social policy at the same time, but obviously the rammifications haven't been well thought out.

Can you think of a better social policy for abortion than the one I stated? There most likely isn't one, otherwise these controversial court cases wouldn't have piled up in the aftermath. Again, why can I not sell my organs? Or at the least, lease future interests in my organs when I pass away for money?

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 01:17 AM

Anyone who unreasonably endangers the life of an unborn child should be held responsible. Drinking, smoking, and other recreational drugs are definately in the unreasonable category for me. A pregnant mother taking medication for a legitimate illness, where the drug might endanger the unborn child would be a reasonable risk so long as there were no other low-risk alternatives. A pregnant mother driving to work would be reasonable. A pregnant women driving a car in a demolition derby would not. Danger vs neccessity.

But which takes priority: the mother's well-being, or the fetus'? If the lower-risk alternative is also less effective, how do you legislate which is right for which circumstance?

And how do you legislate danger vs necessity?

Obviously these actions are not in the best interest of the mother or unborn child, and I would classify them as unreasonable endangerment. I realize that you are trying to show that by making abortions illegal, you will be forcing the mother to endanger herself further by using unsafe methods of aborting the birth. Let me answer that implied question with another: Should we provide legal drug inducement centers to cater to recreational drug users? Surely if we do not, they will be at greater risk than if we provided monitoring and close medical care. Are the risks of condoning an action and controlling it less than outlawing the action and losing a good portion of that control? I honestly don't know in this situation.

And the drug discussion is the one I was trying to avoid in my previous post ;)

Personally, I don't see the difference between something like, say, cigarettes/alcohol and marijuana. It's a matter of semantics. Why are some drugs legal, and others not? I personally believe that if there were safer, legal ways to obtain drugs, we would see a decline in drug-related violent crime... but this, as I stated before, is a completely different thread.

And actually, the "endangering the mother" thing was only part of my point. The other part was asking for clarity on where people draw the line between the mother's rights and the fetus' rights.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 01:22 AM

It is precisely this reason why I am against abortion. The social policy adopted behind abortion is terrible. It isn't like there aren't other options to abortion that don't create a piss poor social policy at the same time, but obviously the rammifications haven't been well thought out.

Can you think of a better social policy for abortion than the one I stated? There most likely isn't one, otherwise these controversial court cases wouldn't have piled up in the aftermath. Again, why can I not sell my organs? Or at the least, lease future interests in my organs when I pass away for money?

Being against the wording of the abortion laws is entirely different from being against abortion. The law can be changed or reworded to counter contradictions such as those without having to ban it outright. However, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by "social policy."

As for your organs, I have no idea. For some organs, you need 'em to survive, though not all. So the ones you need to live, I can understand. The others, well, who knows? That's not central to this argument, anyway. People aren't making the argument that the fetus is like a mother's organ. The argument is whether or not we can legislate what a women does to her own body (short of causing her own death).

You know what? I'm not even sure if it's illegal to have organs removed for non-medical reasons. Good luck finding a doctor that will do it, but can someone verify whether or not it is illegal? If you can remove an organ for kicks, then this nullifies this argument anyway.

setrict

09-09-2005, 01:27 AM

I don't know exactly when life begins in the womb, and until that status is unequivocally determined I'm against abortion. I believe that taking a human life for your own gain is quite possibly the worst action a human being is capable of. More so when the life taken is absolutely helpless. If there is any doubt as to the status of 'life' I'd rather err on the side of safety. Anything else is just selfish.

Animeband

09-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Being against the wording of the abortion laws is entirely different from being against abortion. The law can be changed or reworded to counter contradictions such as those without having to ban it outright. However, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by "social policy."

As for your organs, I have no idea. For some organs, you need 'em to survive, though not all. So the ones you need to live, I can understand. The others, well, who knows? That's not central to this argument, anyway. People aren't making the argument that the fetus is like a mother's organ. The argument is whether or not we can legislate what a women does to her own body (short of causing her own death).

You know what? I'm not even sure if it's illegal to have organs removed for non-medical reasons. Good luck finding a doctor that will do it, but can someone verify whether or not it is illegal? If you can remove an organ for kicks, then this nullifies this argument anyway.

The social policy is the reasoning why the court wishes to adopt the law. Laws need to have reasons behind them. For example, we allow people to sue doctors for malpractice because the social policy adopted by the court is "We want to hold doctors accountable for their actions." All laws have to have a social policy behind them, or we don't pass them.

What was the social policy of the court when ruling on abortion? The women should have the right to choose because her body is her property to do with as she wishes. Piss poor reasoning. By that logic, I can sell my organs. If my spleen has cancer and doctors remove it to save my life and make money researching on the cancer of my spleen in order to understand the cancer better, I can therefore sue them for theft of my spleen (that may sound funny, but that was an actual famous court case afterwards). Yet, there is no other social policy that is adaptable to allow abortion to be legal otherwise.

And yes, removing organs for donations is legal. As it stands however, only by tradition of the organ donation committees do we keep an altruistic attitude for organ donation. Yet, many policy makers wish to extend that to allow people to sell their organs. Should that be socially acceptable?

Deadhead

09-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Kaji, Im familiar with Job. But do you understand how a god who claims that he loves us so much, then makes people suffer for pretty much no reason, may be a little suspect?

Like I said earlier, if there is a god he is a sadist.

Nessa

09-09-2005, 01:40 AM

Maybe they are capable of feeling pain, I really dont know. But most higher animals feel pain. It doesnt mean we dont treat them better. The same with hunger and fatigue. Tons of animals can feel those too, and they do not constitute a right to life.

Its a known fact that infants are not capable of higher emotions, and that they actually lag behind chimp developement until year 1. They are not some highly developed creature that just cant communicate, they are subhuman parasites who are developing into human beings.
Yeah, most mammals take care of their young. But alot of times males kill competing couples children (which I dont think we should do by the way).
Im just saying that in a mother with a newborn wants to smother than newborn or leave it on a mountainside, then Im not going to be the one to judge them.

o_O

If someone smothers their own newborn child, then it is most definately cold blooded murder. People have every right to judge people who commit such acts of savagery.

Deadhead

09-09-2005, 01:51 AM

Animeband

09-09-2005, 01:58 AM

But how is that any worse than killing the higher mammals? Those animals can feel more emotion than an infant can.

I'm not for saving animals either, Its just the logical conclusion.

Infants arent people.

That's because we have a social policy that destroying or domesticating wild animals is good if it eradicates a malicious animal or if that improves human life. Killing an infant not only does not fufill any of those, but it also violates the policy of preservation of human life.

Deadhead

09-09-2005, 02:05 AM

Animeband

09-09-2005, 02:14 AM

We routinely (and cruelly) test products on animals more capable of emotion than a human baby.

Either you believe is a value to all life, or there is a value to sentient life, or there is no value to life.

I fall in the middle. Thusly, I dont care if infants, who are not capable of emotion or love, are killed.

Those tests yield beneficial results to humanity, so it's fine by the above social policy, although yes, there are statutes for unjust cruelty to animals. Key word being unjust.

By law and also because it is simply morally correct, we hold value for human life. To twist it otherwise is not acceptable. Otherwise, I can go to a hospital, kill all of the babies in the maternity ward, and not get tried for murder by all of the grieving parents with your logic.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 05:53 AM

For someone to get an abortion just because they don't want to accept the responsibility of a child strikes me as one of the most irresponsible acts possible. People don't learn from their mistakes unless there are consequences.

Look, Trump, Kokujin, Ljustus and co. You're doing a very good job at irritating me shitless. Have you been there?

Cause we were, me and my girlfriend, several times, eventually she didn't get pregnant but I have no doubt that if she had we would have had an aborption, because that was the responsible thing to do. We both have no jobs, no stable lives, no family support, we're gonna be separated by 10 000 miles soon and have no idea about our future. We don't want our child to be born in such an environment and fuck up his chances in life from the start, and if we can prevent it before the baby even exists, we don't think about it anymore than you think about sacrificing the potential of each of the millions of spermatozoids you spend when you jerk off. I'm not claiming being a father is not wonderful yada yada yada, I'm saying being a kid often sucks, and I've met enought people who've been made a mess because their parents screwed up to appreciate the responsibility of parenthood.

What you are saying is that those people who are "the most irresponsible people" on earth, instead of having an aborption which is evil, should raise kids??? Like raising kids is not a responsibility? Are you out of your mind?

[edit]
To live in a society where it's ok for a teenage mother to kill off her unborn because she didn't a little but of planning......I'll stop repeating.

How the hell do you do that? Kill what is unborn?

Pierrot le Fou

09-09-2005, 06:04 AM

And just as clarification, RU-486 is the abortion pill (recently approved?) by the FDA for use in the US that will cause a miscarriage up to x amount of weeks after conception. The Morning-After Pill (a high dose of hormones, the same effect can be achieved using normal birth-control pills in the proper amount) is effective up to 72 hours, but is most effective in the first 24. Sooner the better and all that.

RDClip

09-09-2005, 06:05 AM

We routinely (and cruelly) test products on animals more capable of emotion than a human baby.

Either you believe is a value to all life, or there is a value to sentient life, or there is no value to life.

I fall in the middle. Thusly, I dont care if infants, who are not capable of emotion or love, are killed.
I think most people are unknowing specists. I'm pretty sure you would be to if put in a situation. If you have the choice of who would die a fully grown chimp or a newborn human and wouldn't be punished for either choice, I can say you would want the human child to survive.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 06:26 AM

Like I argued here: http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26732&postcount=31,

When "Life" starts is not really the matter here. There are a lot of things that are alive that you don't care about. Personally, I don't think infants or chimps should be killed for no reasons and I'm all for punishing people who do. However, if for some reason I had to choose between letting an infant or a grown-up adult die, I would choose the former even though my mammal instinct would tell me otherwise. I know families in which a baby died, and it is nowhere as big a trauma as loosing your child when he is a teenager, even though it is still very tough.

Now, more on topic: what matters is what constitues a human being, since we all agree about the sanctity of life for complete human beings to some extent. Kokujin and others argue that the mere possibility that an unborn child would become a human being makes it wrong to have an aborption. Well, in three days my girlfriend will be ready and I can get her pregnant; and very well unless I stupidly decide to try Japanese condoms again I won't. I am wasting the chance that a human being might be born into this world in 9 months, that he/she will become a PhD, raise a fine family, become a nobel prize and what not. Am I murdering this non-existent person by not getting my girlfriend pregnant? Now what is the difference with stopping a pregnancy before anything human comes out of it? Sure, it is unatural and requires human intervention, much like wearing clothes or going to work is unatural. Is it your only argument?

[Edit] Just to tease the faithful, about the Job comment: dead people don't learn their lesson. But I'm sure all those kids who died in the tsunami were greedy bastards and that it served them right in the grand scheme of things.

Animeband

09-09-2005, 06:39 AM

So for pro abortion people: What is your social policy in allowing abortion to be?

Kustom

09-09-2005, 06:44 AM

I don't think it's about owning your body, because I still think the father has a say in this, although if it comes down to who should have the last word then of course the woman should. It's about your freedom being limited only by the freedom of others, which means that if no harms come to another being it's your own business (and yes, I don't think foetuses are beings, they have the potential to be human beings but it's very different, see my post above).

And yes, I think things like taking drugs, smoking, commiting suicide, worshipping Satan or whatnot is your own business as long as you don't harm other people.

Animeband

09-09-2005, 07:17 AM

It's about your freedom being limited only by the freedom of others, which means that if no harms come to another being it's your own business (and yes, I don't think foetuses are beings, they have the potential to be human beings but it's very different, see my post above).

Do I have the freedom to sell my organs then? Or sell my eggs to be artificially inseminated? Or leasing future interests of my organs, say my liver, which then gives the person the right to sue me if I drink and damage my liver? Also, can I sue research companies for removing my cancerous spleen and then making money off of the research of those cells?

By that policy these would happen because there are no harms to others.

Collapse

09-09-2005, 07:18 AM

Against, because you know, Abortion is still murder. Even worse, murder of an unborn child, which is the lowest of the low.

kensei

09-09-2005, 07:22 AM

Kustom

09-09-2005, 09:05 AM

Against, because you know, Abortion is still murder. Even worse, murder of an unborn child, which is the lowest of the low.

Hell, my example with my girlfriend being fertile in three days and how I'm not gonna get her pregnant is even lower than that. By some extraordinary chance, the woman could change her mind on an aborption at the last minute... But I mean, in my case the baby doesn't even stand a chance to be conceived in the first place! Even more helpless, poor little guy! I'm going to hell!

RDClip

09-09-2005, 10:22 AM

Do I have the freedom to sell my organs then? Or sell my eggs to be artificially inseminated? Or leasing future interests of my organs, say my liver, which then gives the person the right to sue me if I drink and damage my liver? Also, can I sue research companies for removing my cancerous spleen and then making money off of the research of those cells?

By that policy these would happen because there are no harms to others.
I find those quite unlikely to ever happen. But what the hell, you can sue anyone for anything nowadays.

In all the places in the world where abortion is legal, where has it become like that?

Kass

09-09-2005, 10:49 AM

But then why would God create humans, knowing that we would suffer?

Why have children knowing the world sucks and they could die painfully, get raped, murdered, assaulted, slip in the bathtub and break their neck, have their heart broken or become a cannibalistic serial killer? That question in and of itself could be used as a justification for not only abortion, but infanticide and murder. Life sucks, his parents couldn’t stop him from acting like and imbecile and he’s probably going to die anyway, so let’s just kill him now and be done with it.

Parenting, which is the most common and probably best explanation of the concept of a Christian God (my OPINION), isn’t about raising perfect offspring, though that would be nice. People are social animals and need love and attention as much as they need to procreate. Nearly 90% of parenting is teaching right from wrong and hoping like hell it sticks. Do you really thing Jeffrey Dahmer’s mother pointed to a person and said, “See honey, we eat these things?” Of course she didn’t. I know for a fact my parents told me not to have sex before I was married. That stuck like an egg in an oily, Teflon pan. Fortunately, the lessons that mattered (respect, love, compassion, courtesy, education and how to play a mean game of Scrabble) did.

You do your best to bring them up right and let them go to live their lives. It’s the same with God. He does His best and hopes we do well. Unfortunately, free will is a real bitch and people suck an awful lot.

And if God doesnt have power over something as simple as nature, is he really worth worshipping?

If nature were so simple, why do weathermen get it wrong 90% of the time? They’ve got a 50/50 shot at any prediction and blow it more often than not.

Besides, it isn’t about control. It’s about love.

This was better written the first time I typed it. Stupid ‘puter freeze.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 11:09 AM

Pierrot le Fou

09-09-2005, 11:14 AM

I find those quite unlikely to ever happen. But what the hell, you can sue anyone for anything nowadays.

In all the places in the world where abortion is legal, where has it become like that?
You're not understanding his point.

Roe v. Wade set a precedent stating that because a woman 'owns' her body (for a lack of a better word), and the fetus is a part of that body, she is allowed to abort it. The precedent that someone owns their own body can be applied to organ donation, and as has been stated, there have been court cases about it. Because of the precedent set in Roe v. Wade, people can use the logic applied in that case in regards to other issues.

One of those being organ donation/markets.

We can argue back and forth about whether it's a slippery slope, but we'll never get anywhere. Because it doesn't matter. What matters is that the highest court in the land has stated that it is okay to have an abortion because you own the contents of your body. If you didn't figure it out, the italicized part is the important part.

Just because abortion doesn't necessarily lead to selling internal organs doesn't change the fact that the precedent set theoretically would allow the selling of internal organs.

And that's just crazy stuff.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 11:22 AM

I don't see why someone who describes himself as a libertarian would disapprove of selling one's own organs. People do crazy stuff all the time, if there are really people crazy enought to do that they can.

Maybe buying somebody's organs should be punished. That would make sense.

Kass

09-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Kass, you do realise you are talking about god as if he was merely as potent as any other human (you can't help natural disaster... It's like being a parent, you don't control the world your child is born in... weathermen too get things wrong...).

So, in essence, your position is that God is benevolent, but not omnipotent. He could be pretty much one of us. As somebody pointed out, this is the only way out if you want to prove God is benevolent, because if he were omnipotent, he sure would be responsible for everything including natural disasters AND creating some people whose free will will actually lead them to do wrong, because he should see that too.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, since I think it's pretty much the only line of defense religious people can credibly use.

I did say it was my OPINION and if man is created in God's image, it makes sense that we'd feel the same emotions as him or vice versa. No where does the Bible ever claim that he is without feelings. In contrast, they are shown. His love, his anger, his joy, his disappointment. The Bible even says God considers all mankind his children. Sometimes, you HAVE to let your children make their own mistakes and live with the consequences. You only step in when absolutely necessary.

He is omniscient and even perhaps omnipotent, but true wisdom lies in knowing when to use that power and more importantly, when NOT to used that power. You can't force people to love, hate or believe. You guide and trust that they learn to do so.

Life isn't a huge RPG and God isn't some game master pulling strings and guiding the course of play. He doesn't move the pieces around to fit his whims and desires.

Pierrot le Fou

09-09-2005, 01:50 PM

Because the second organs become currency is the moment that a kidney can be put up in a contract as an asset, or otherwise essentially legalize murder in order to complete a contract. That's why it's crazy.

JudoPorkChop

09-09-2005, 01:54 PM

But a libertarian should be all for it. If someone else wants to put their liver up as collateral, then fine. It's not YOUR liver. You don't have to like or agree with the transaction, either. It doesn't involve you.

Trump

09-09-2005, 02:39 PM

Cause we were, me and my girlfriend, several times, eventually she didn't get pregnant but I have no doubt that if she had we would have had an aborption, because that was the responsible thing to do. We both have no jobs, no stable lives, no family support, we're gonna be separated by 10 000 miles soon and have no idea about our future. We don't want our child to be born in such an environment and fuck up his chances in life from the start, and if we can prevent it before the baby even exists, we don't think about it anymore than you think about sacrificing the potential of each of the millions of spermatozoids you spend when you jerk off. I'm not claiming being a father is not wonderful yada yada yada, I'm saying being a kid often sucks, and I've met enought people who've been made a mess because their parents screwed up to appreciate the responsibility of parenthood.

What you are saying is that those people who are "the most irresponsible people" on earth, instead of having an aborption which is evil, should raise kids??? Like raising kids is not a responsibility? Are you out of your mind?

Perhaps, the answer to this would be .... don't have sex? Especially don't have unprotected sex!!! If you aren't in a situation where you would want to raise a child, you better damn make sure you don't get someone pregnant! And honestly, I don't know which is worse. A shitty parent or the attitude that 'It's ok that you got someone pregnant. Get an abortion, it's your get out of jail free card. No consequences.' Those are both HORRIBLE options. If it were an ideal world no one would ever want or need an abortion. But since it isn't I leave those choices to the people who actually need to make them. I can only hope that the world comes closer to that ideal and that starts with people being responsible.

setrict

09-09-2005, 03:22 PM

And yes, I think things like taking drugs, smoking, commiting suicide, worshipping Satan or whatnot is your own business as long as you don't harm other people.

I agree. We differ on the definition of a person however. We may also differ on the definition of harm. Harm can be caused by both inaction and action.

Say for example you were a victim in the recent New Orleans flooding. The water was chest high, and you were doing your best to survive. What if you saw an elderly woman floating toward you unconscious and helpless, but very much alive.

What is your responsibility in this situation?

Are you morally obligated to assist the woman? Legally?

Trying to save the woman could potentially kill you; however lets assume that you can reasonably insure the survival of both of you, though it won't be an easy or pleasant task. It might help if you were stronger and able to carry the woman. There are others who could do it much better than you can, but you seem to be the only one around.

It's a horrible choice to have to make. Neither of you wanted this to happen. No one asked for it. It would have been better to have avoided the flood altogether, but what is past is past and cannot be undone.

What do you do?

Would it make a difference if her husband was within sight begging you to save her, but unable to save her himself? Her young child?

Would it make a difference if someone had carried the woman and forced her upon you rather than to have just stumbled on to her? Does somone elses irresponsibility justify your own?

Would it make a difference if she was a young? Handicapped?

Would it make a difference if saving her would likely cause you serious injury, perhaps the loss of a limb. Death?

Kustom

09-09-2005, 03:31 PM

Well, Trump, I think we agree then.
I'm not saying aborption is good, I'm just saying that sometimes, preventing a potential human being from coming into existence can be better than screwing up the life of real human beings, chiefly the kid. Why should the child be punished for the parent's mistake (and when I say child, I mean an actual person, not a cluster of cells without conscience)? Whether or not foetuses have a soul is open to an endless debate and we will never know; people who get fucked up in the head by irresponsible parents are very real and everywhere for us to see. If I have to take my chances, then the irresponsibility of getting an aborption is nothing compared to the irresponsibility of screwing your children chances in life.

And Kass, no I'm sorry but you can't make the case that God is omnipotent if you think he's like a loving parent. What kind of loving parent would let his children be raped, killed, cut to pieces and thrown down the latrines if they could help it? Would you let your daughter die and say: "You had it coming, you should have listened to my guidance more" while you watch? It won't ever fly. Children who die their lungs full of salt water or cut to pieces by machetes don't "learn their lesson", nobody is wiser because it happens.
Seriously, if I met a "loving parent" that would let his children starve not because he can't help, but because he'd rather watch and see what happens, I wouldn't exactly worhship him.

Trump

09-09-2005, 08:06 PM

I think we agree on points. I guess I just feel like it is far too easy to get an abortion. I feel like there are far too many people out there who don't see it as a last resort for a bad situation. And I don't see that situation changing =/

PopCulturePooka

09-09-2005, 10:08 PM

So...

I've noticed many here who are pro-choice, but mainly when abortion is needed in times like rape/incest. People seem less comfortable with the idea of 'abortion as contraception'. Or the similar idea of 'abortion on demand'. I am for AOD.

While there is the chance that women may see abortion as a first resort contreception idea, I think thats quite rare and not a reason to make abortion unavailable to women.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that a women alive now is more important than a potentia. I believe if having a baby would cause the women (or the child) undue mental, physical, social, financial or educational pain, that she should have the right to abort.

For me, the hows and whys of how she became pregnant are not exceedingly important. If she needs the abortion, she should be able to get the abortion.

I've known three women who have had one (My mother, my best friend and... another). I've talked to each of them a good deal about what they went through. By the sounds of it, getting an abortion is not easy. Its a quick trip to Dr Hoover. Its an invasive, unpleasant experience.

It hurts like a mother fucker, for a few days at least. The women may bleed over the next few days. The drugs they prescribe after make the women drowsy and not all there. The anaesthetic takes a while to wear off. If a women has repeated abortions, she increases the chance of damaging her reproductive ability.

Thats just the physical side of things. Mentally and emotionally its not pleasant for the women either. Theres feelings of guilt, loss, betrayal. In Australia Abortion clinics run councelling services before and after for women to help them move on.

Its not a case of 'Oh shit, preggers again, better stop by the Clinic before work.'

There are many reasons why even bringing a baby to term to give up for adoption can be harmful to the women.

A teen girl could face severe punishment from her family should they learn she is pregnant. My best friend, if her parents learnt she was pregnant, would have been kicked out of home. Her father was a borderline abusive nutjob. Adopted out or not, my friends life would have been royally fucked up if she didn't abort. Was getting pregnant a dumb mistake? Yes. Was it worth having her life destroyed? Fuck no. Not to mention missing a good deal of schooling, which can be hard to make up.

Its a sad fact that many women these days still feel pressured to take time of/leave a job should they fall pregnant. In some cases women still get fired. For a women starting out in a career this is not a good a thing.

Should a person abstain from sex, wear condoms, use protection? Yes. In a perfect world. Is this a perfect world? No. People have sex They make mistakes.

Given the pain and anguish suffered during an abortion, and the fact that if a women is contemplating an abortion, she has a good reason to not have the child. Its a responsible act for most women.

However...

If abortions on demand are made legal, I would like to see a national records system kept. Of course completely confidential, like any medical record. But abortion clinics across a country should be able to access them. If it comes to pass that a women has had a lot of abortions, then obviously something is wrong with her or her lifestyle, and the clinics should endevour to provide help for the women about why she keeps getting pregnant and how to prevent it. Any women who coninuously gets pregnant and aborts has something wrong with her lifestyle in the first place.

ImEllPro

09-09-2005, 10:23 PM

1) Man made God in his own image and likeness. You can't prove God exists - you can only hope it does through faith. Books can lie. People can lie. You're a fool if you believe everything you read and everything people tell you. It's not always good to be a sheep or a lemming.

2) If you're against abortion, don't have one. In America, everyone has the right to make their own decisions about things. You have NO right to tell other people what to do. You DO have the right to speak your mind, tho. However, unless someone actively wants to change their mind about something, they won't. You'll just be wasting your breath.

3) When is a fetus a child? When it can survive outside the mother. Thanks to medical science, that's down to about 6 months. Before its out of the mother, tho, its a part of the mother's body. If she wishes to have a growth removed, its her choice. HER choice. Until it's out of the mother's body, a fetus has NO right to choice - it's a part of the mother's body. Anyone that think they have the right to speak for a fetus is an egotistical SOB.

4) Should people have the right to sell body parts? Yes. Why can't they? Because the governments want people healthy enough to work, so they can pay taxes, so the governments can make money, so government employees can get rich enough to buy their yachts and get their mistresses diamond necklaces. If you can't work you wind up costing the governments money, and we can't have that, now can we?

This isn't rocket science, folks.

Feel free to flame me - I need something to laugh at. Words are just that - words. There's only as much value behind them as we choose to place on them. And believe me, I value flames as much as I value farts. Its for their humor quality.

I'm gonna' go get something to eat. Have fun.

Deadhead

09-09-2005, 11:42 PM

I really dont understand why an organ market would be a bad thing...

setrict

09-09-2005, 11:42 PM

When is a fetus a child? When it can survive outside the mother...

Anyone that think they have the right to speak for a fetus is an egotistical SOB.

And I should accept your declaration of when a fetus transitions from growth to child why exactly? I'm not saying you are alone in your opinion, many would agree... but I have say that anyone who thinks they have the right to declare the exact moment an unborn fetus changes from thing to a child is an egotistical SOB ;)

ImEllPro

09-09-2005, 11:47 PM

Hey, works for me. I AM an egotistical SOB.

edit - I don't care if you accept it or not. It's just my opinions. Opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one, they're usually full of shit, and what comes out of yours doesn't stink compared to anyone else's. I know my shit stinks. I'm just proud that it does.

setrict

09-09-2005, 11:48 PM

touche' :D

Expert Insomniac

09-10-2005, 12:31 AM

I just remembered something I wanted to share! Now, to put this in perspective, my father is very pro-life. I still remember being a little kid and going to pro-life rallies with him. (Ever see a pro-life rally and wonder what happens to the little kids? They grow up and become liberals.) This is the reason I find this fact so interesting: my father found it.

In the Bible, when it's listing all the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, what you give is what you get laws, it lists the punishments for killing a woman. While the punishment for killing a pregnant woman is a little more severe (I think the perpetrator needs to pay some more money to the husband), it is not treated as nearly the same severity as killing two people. Back in those days, death of an unborn child was not looked at in the same light as death of someone who was alive. Even today, it's not. People don'yt have funerals for miscarraiges, do they?

ImEllPro

09-10-2005, 12:43 AM

My wife had a miscarrage between our two daughters, and while we were concerned that it wasn't a viable pregnancy (because we wanted two children), we knew we could always have another one. No funeral. Why pay to have a funeral for a mass of unviable tissue that may, or may not, some day be a person? It's like wiping your ass with a $100 bill.

Kustom

09-10-2005, 05:37 AM

Ok, I guess Pooka made the point that aborption should also be available on demand and not only in extreme cases very well, so I won't repeat it.

All the women I know who had an aborption found it a horrible, psychologically and physically painful process and never want to go through it again if they can avoid it. I've never seen any of those "sluts that use aborption as birth control" and until you come up with decently credible examples I find it safe to assume they exist only in your imagination.

But further, to all of you who despise women who have an aborption, safe in the knowledge that as a male you will never face that choice, do you think you're such a great human being? I can only assume that you also have nothing but contempt for HIV positive people, because at some time they got careless, right? So it's the woman's fault if the condom broke, her fault if the pill failed, her fault if she's broke, 16 and the father ran away, her fault if the pharmacist was a religious zealot who refuses to sell the morning-after pill.

So? Do you feel superior by calling her names, do you feel all warm inside calling her a murderer as she faces one of the most excruciating choice there is in life? Does it make you sleep better at night to spit on those who have fallen?

I can only hope that if your sister of friend was in that situation, you would be less insensitive than you are behind the anonimity of a forum.

Marblehead

09-10-2005, 05:52 AM

Normally I wouldn't jump into a crazy-ass thread like this but I got a curious question.

How many of you think that abortion should be regulated by the states, rather than the federal government?

ImEllPro

09-10-2005, 07:47 AM

Me!

You can't rely on the feds any more. How do I know this? One word:

Katrina.

Nessa

09-10-2005, 08:24 AM

JudoPorkChop

09-10-2005, 08:49 AM

I've never seen any of those "sluts that use aborption as birth control" and until you come up with decently credible examples I find it safe to assume they exist only in your imagination.

I know a few. What, do you want names and addresses or something? Posted abortion videos? Sworn affidavit? Or are you just calling people liars for kicks?

Kustom

09-10-2005, 08:49 AM

Ok, now let's consider the following situation. If tomorrow, a sizeable minority of the population with powerful interest groups start believing that every spermatozoid has a soul, without any evidence to back this far-fetched belief. Would you therefore agree to make masturbation and intercourse illegal, and only allow people to reproduce through sperm banks so that every little guy has a chance to develop into a complete human being?

In essence, this is how I feel about hardcore "pro-life" bigots. You asking society to screw up the lives of thousands of people because of a belief God plants a soul/nature stuffs life into the egg right after the spermatozoid enters it. Oh no, wait a minute, you didn't say anything against the morning after pill, so I guess God waits a good 3 days before he puts the soul in, is that right?

Personally, obviously I'm glad I wasn't aborpted, but if I had I wouldn't have known what hit me. Wouldn't be born, wouldn't think, wouldn't care. How much do you remember about the first months you spent as a cluster of cell?
Sure, I got lucky, but my little brother Timmy who could have been conceived 6 months later if I had been aborpted wasn't. If we start talking about wasting "potential" human beings, then it leads us to ban recreationnal sex altogether, or force every fertile woman to marry, among other things.

You might think your position is a way to save a potential life, and not taking chances. But don't forget unwanted pregnancies are a very good way to ruin lives as well, and not only the mother's.

Nessa

09-10-2005, 09:47 AM

Pfalzer

09-10-2005, 05:07 PM

Well if abortion is murder then masturbation is mass murder... Then tht would make D_pad fucking Adolf Hitler!

Iekleane

09-10-2005, 05:20 PM

Well if abortion is murder then masturbation is mass murder... Then tht would make D_pad fucking Adolf Hitler!

You would also have to count a girls period as murder aswell though. I mean that is where the other half of the baby's dna or whatever comes from.

And fuck D_Pad Im the Hitler of masturbation! Check the IRC for proof!

setrict

09-10-2005, 06:41 PM

But further, to all of you who despise women who have an aborption, safe in the knowledge that as a male you will never face that choice, do you think you're such a great human being?

Who the hell said I despise women who have an abortion? Stop spreading hate where there isn't any. I don't agree with the act, but that certainly doesn't make me hate someone who has had an abortion. I know friends, and family that have had abortions. I don't treat then with any less respect, or love them any less for it. If anything I just find it terribly depressing. As for being male, and never having to face the choice - yeah, that right has been both biologically, and legally denied me. I couldn't even legally object to my own child being aborted.

StormShadow

09-10-2005, 06:48 PM

You can say abortian is a terrible thing. You can say that you would never condone it. You can say that you would never date somebody who even consider it as an option. Your feelings will change as you sit outside that bathroom waiting for Mary Jane to pee on a stick. Your feelings will change as 5 minutes turn into into what seems like the rest of your life compacted into a shorter time span. Your feelings will change two weeks after prom when you stare at a stick wondering what the hell a blue line means.

bloop

09-10-2005, 08:47 PM

I've only skimmed this thread, so please forgive me if I am misinterpreting people's posts.
Several of you have said that abortion is a convenient way for someone to get out of a mess they created because they are irresponsible. That is true for some people, but not for others. Rape and contraception failure aside, there are also people who truly do not comprehend the reality that they CAN get pregnant from sex or don't fully understand the ways of preventing pregnancy (especially given that many so-called sex "education" programs give false information or do not include contraception in the curriculum). There are MANY people who are ignorant when it comes to birth control.... and reproduction in general.
Not many people realize that some forms of the oral contraceptives can take days to become effective. Some people don't understand that this is something that doesn't fully eliminate their chances of pregnancy, even with perfect use. Some people don't have a clue what is meant by perfect use. It's not always about responsibility. During the 9 months where I was on a daily medication, I missed at least 3 days. Is this perfect use? No. Was I being irresponsible? No - I'm just not perfect.
Don't think that it is necessarily the patient's fault for being ignorant. People do not always have the benefit of being well-informed. Healthcare providers do not always give you all the information you need. Again, using myself as an example, the med I was on was hepatotoxic (liver-damaging), and people on the drug are supposed to have monthly liver function tests. Did my doctor tell me this? No. I had read the drug insert and asked him about the possible adverse effects, and he never once mentioned tests. I was a teenager and trusted that my doctor would know what was best medically for me.
Is the woman who gets multiple abortions "irresponsible" as many people are labeling her? Or is she a woman whose husband abuses her and her children yet continuously forces her to have sex without a condom? Or is she suffering from a psychiatric disorder, like Factitious Disorder, where she craves the attention she gets when she goes in for the procedure? Is the 16 year old who comes in asking for an abortion there because she decided to have unprotected sex with her boyfriend? Or did he tell her that he had put on a condom when he really didn't and she believed him? YOU CAN'T TELL, so stop making that judgment.

There ARE people who use abortion as contraception. However, by making abortion illegal or morally wrong, you are condemning many others. Some of you have distinguished the irresponsible from the ones who get an abortion because they are forced to. Again, how do you make that judgment without knowing the patient personally?
Abortion is rarely a easy decision for people, and having someone tell them "You are going to hell, baby-killer" is absolutely disgusting.

Selling of organs is illegal but it happens. There are people who go into the OR with donors they've found and presented with a considerable "gift".
One of the differences between organ selling and abortion is that you don't transfer the fetus into another person. I mean, if I wanted to, I can cut off my own finger and throw it in the garbage, and that's perfectly legal. They'd throw me in the psych ward and put me on surveillance, but no one's going to press charges against me.

LimbyLoo

09-10-2005, 09:08 PM

When it comes down to it, the only time you can make a clear choice is when you're sitting there, alone, with a pregnancy test in your hand thinking "is this for real?" Then I'll believe you when you say you're either pro-choice or pro-life. Until then, you can say whatever the hell you want but I won't believe you either way. You just don't know until it's staring you straight in the face.

As for me personally, I would be afraid to live in a country where a woman couldn't have control over her own life. People sometimes think that women who get abortions are only in it for themselves. That's absolutely not true. Abortion or no abortion, every woman who faces an unplanned pregancy has to go through the difficult process of weighing the options. It's very stressful and takes a lot of courage. Whatever the outcome, I think every woman makes the right decision for herself, and society should not come down on those women who go down the more controversial path, because they've just made one of the hardest decisions of their lives.

Whether you keep the baby or not, you're still making a courageous move and I can't find any reason to condemn a woman for trying to better her life.

Roxie

09-10-2005, 09:15 PM

I don't think that I, myself, could do it. But that's no ground for me to say others shouldn't be able to.

Making it illegal, definently won't make it go away. It'll only push underground into dangerous places, as it was before it was legal.

And I've seen situations where it may have been better for the child to never have lived.

Abortion should NOT be used as contraception, simply for the fact your uterus can only take so much. Doctors advise no more than 3.

I am agreeing with PCP.

ElectronicPhreak

09-10-2005, 11:53 PM

Pro-choice all the way.

Kustom

09-11-2005, 04:45 AM

Quote:
But further, to all of you who despise women who have an aborption, safe in the knowledge that as a male you will never face that choice, do you think you're such a great human being?

Who the hell said I despise women who have an abortion? Stop spreading hate where there isn't any. I don't agree with the act, but that certainly doesn't make me hate someone who has had an abortion. I know friends, and family that have had abortions. I don't treat then with any less respect, or love them any less for it. If anything I just find it terribly depressing. As for being male, and never having to face the choice - yeah, that right has been both biologically, and legally denied me. I couldn't even legally object to my own child being aborted.

This wasn't directed at you in particular:

Against, because you know, Abortion is still murder. Even worse, murder of an unborn child, which is the lowest of the low.

I'll answer this:

Illiegal? NO.

Is it selfish, irresponsible, and from my perspective looked down upon? Yes.

I can understand it if there's a chance the mother will die in pregnancy or that the child will have severe physical and/or mental problems, but it shouldn't be used as a method of birth control like some teenage sluts think it is.

i detest abortion. i think its murder. it doesn't matter if the mother should suffer for one mistake

For someone to get an abortion just because they don't want to accept the responsibility of a child strikes me as one of the most irresponsible acts possible.

And finally:
Abortion as birth control is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Killing as a matter of convenience disgusts me.

Now explain how you can write for everyone to see that those women are wrong and disgusting but you still love and respect them? You can certainly understand from the comments above why I got a little fired up.

Nessa

09-11-2005, 04:55 AM

Kustom

09-11-2005, 05:54 AM

I never said I hate women who've had abortions either. I will however, look down on someone who continues to have abortions just so she can have sex freely. The slutty ones who use it as birth control are the one's who need a smack in the head.

Where on earth have you met those? I'd like you to give us a few half-credible examples, or I just can't believe they exist. Aborption is not fun goddamn it, it fucks up your body bad enought, no one in their right mind would like to have one instead of taking the pill!

Nessa

09-11-2005, 06:42 AM

Where on earth have you met those? I'd like you to give us a few half-credible examples, or I just can't believe they exist. Aborption is not fun goddamn it, it fucks up your body bad enought, no one in their right mind would like to have one instead of taking the pill!

I don't know anyone who fits that description personally. I don't know anyone who's had an abortion at all, let alone several. But I do know of them through "friends or friends" and daytime talkshows usually have them as well.

Soonerfan09

09-11-2005, 07:05 AM

"Real Killer"

[1st Verse]

I was kicking it
With this chick for a minute
She picked me to hit it
Real stiffly I sitted
He spit
Then we quit it
Then I told her
To miss me
And splitted
Quickly I lit it up
No problem to get it up
Then she called and said
She needed me to help her
Get rid of what
A baby
She said she wanted me to kill it
No evidence
Blood
Don't spill it
I'm saying at first
I didn't feel it
But then I started to ponder
On what was coming up
Yonder
A baby by a fling
Made days seem
Really somber
So we both were in agreement
The baby I seen it
Thinking of killing it
Made me almost fall
To the cement
This ain't a job
I can do myself
I ain't got the brain for this
So I called a homie in Kansas
Who was trained for this
He said
The way I rap
And make skrill for a living
He said he kills for a living
For the grip span
He's a hit man
So I paid him a fee
He told me
What date it would be
Me and her was down
But I really don't think
The baby was G
So we three road to Kansas
Baby probably thinking we scandalous
Can't even walk
And we band his
Life
Man is trife
Walked in
And he told us to relax
I sat
And he took
Her and baby to the back
Before I came
I smoked some dope
To calm me
They came back
And she was baby less
And she was looking like a zombie
Baby gone (Baby gone)
Were we wrong (Hella wrong)
Gotta move on (Gotta move on)
Let it alone (yeah)
I dropped her off
But she didn't hate me
For killing the baby
She said she still
Wanted to date me
Crazy
I'm riding and I'm thinking
Why
I took a life
But I ain't tweeking
I know God
Probably thinking
I should die

[hook]

Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
This is what you call a what
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
I don't really give a fuck
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Know that ain't nobody iller
Real killer
That is me
Mass murderer
Natural born killer
That is me

[2nd Verse]

A couple of years later
I'm creeping with this chicklet
Little thick chick
Hit it raw
And gave her triplets
I need to learn to hold my liquid
So I called my man
In Kansas City, Kan
I told him I
Needed him to do it again
After he put 'em away
I asked him
Homie how could you
Be so raw
He said to me
How could you be so raw
We scatted
one year later
I splatted
In the same chick
She wanted to have it
But I made her do
The same shit
So I murdered five kids of mine
I'm 'bout to sit in hell a lifetime
Bid for mine
Cause of abortion
No more
Abortion
Now it's blown out of proportion
Insane
Never again

[hook]

Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
This is what you call a what
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
I don't really give a fuck
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Real killer
That is me
Know that ain't nobody iller
Real killer
That is me
Mass murderer
Natural born killer
That is me

[/cool anti-abortion song]

Expert Insomniac

09-11-2005, 08:00 AM

I don't know anyone who fits that description personally. I don't know anyone who's had an abortion at all, let alone several. But I do know of them through "friends or friends" and daytime talkshows usually have them as well.

Very reliable sources you have, huh? If you actually believe the things you see on daytime talk shows... you might want to reconsider where you get your information.

Kaji

09-11-2005, 08:14 AM

Goddamn refresh button ate my post...grah...

And Kass, no I'm sorry but you can't make the case that God is omnipotent if you think he's like a loving parent. What kind of loving parent would let his children be raped, killed, cut to pieces and thrown down the latrines if they could help it? Would you let your daughter die and say: "You had it coming, you should have listened to my guidance more" while you watch? It won't ever fly. Children who die their lungs full of salt water or cut to pieces by machetes don't "learn their lesson", nobody is wiser because it happens.
Seriously, if I met a "loving parent" that would let his children starve not because he can't help, but because he'd rather watch and see what happens, I wouldn't exactly worhship him.

Taking over for Cass for a moment...

No parent can control their child's every action. When the parent is away, they have to trust that the children won't kill each other. The only way for God to directly intervene in this scenario would be to restrain free will, but that would violate the very purpose for creating people in the first place. If God just wanted everyone to sing his praises without end, he would have never created free will. By introducing the element of free will, the opportunity was created for people to learn to love one another, as well as himself. True, not everyone avails themself of such, but it is of their own choosing. Furthermore, nothing says there is no intervention whatsoever. There are innumerable cases of instances where people have coincidentally run into someone in distress because they had a feeling they should do something they otherwise had no inclination to do, and thus helped someone out or prevented something from happening.

As for people not learning their lessons, it's not like innocents who are killed in disasters and such are forgotten. Same goes for those who are left behind (to quote Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted"). Those who are killed in disasters may not "learn their lesson" from what happened, but there's the larger picture to be considered as well. Sometimes the death of one can bring about the faith of many (Christ is a prime example of this). Likewise, martyrs aren't faithful who were abandoned, but rather faithful who died so that their example may live on for others to find faith and comfort in. Look at the recent disasters, and how they brought so many people together who otherwise wouldn't be able to agree on anything, all with the desire to help those who survived. In the end they shall be rewarded for their aid, and those affected will be rewarded for their suffering.

The image of a benevolent God and an omnipotent one work perfectly in the context of a parent.

Nessa

09-11-2005, 08:37 AM

Very reliable sources you have, huh? If you actually believe the things you see on daytime talk shows... you might want to reconsider where you get your information.

So I should not believe anything that I haven't actually seen myself, but have only heard about? I don't need to know someone who's been raped to know that it happens.

And even so, is it wrong to have a negative opinion about those girls who use abortion as birth control if they don't even exist?

Expert Insomniac

09-11-2005, 08:57 AM

Nessa: I never said anything about not believing something you haven't seen/experienced yourself. I merely said that daytime talk shows are a horrible place to get facts.

And frankly... I have a really hard time believing that abortion as birth control is such a huge problem. I'm sure there's some women who do use abortion as their only method of birth control, but I'm also sure that it's a small minority. Small enough that it shouldn't be an issue when discussing abortion rights. And the fact is, like LimbyLoo said, abortion is one of those things that it's hard to comment on until you're put in the position of possibly needing one. To use your example of rape... I was sexually assaulted at the beginning of my junior year. After this happened, a lot of my friends ended up finding out (for irrelevant reasons) and every single one with the exception of my current boyfriend, told me things like, "You should've done this." Or, "If he did that to me, I would've kicked his ass, etc. etc." It's very easy to say things like that... I used to say things like that. But in the moment, you don't. Same thing with abortion... it's easy to be against it when you're not affected by it, but once you're there having to deal with it... it's not nearly as simple as it was before.

Nessa

09-11-2005, 09:27 AM

PopCulturePooka

09-11-2005, 10:19 AM

Yes, I can see what you mean about talk shows not being the best place for information.

How about some statistics on abortions?

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."Those stats don't prove a thing.

I don't feel the second link can be trusted considering its an anti-abortion site that will bias stats in favour of their argument or use biased studies. Its not objective. Even if they source from the same study (they do), the very fact that the site is anti-abortion makes it weak grounding for debates. A good example of presentation bias is in their comment about 93% of women abort for social reasons. Their very wording in the brackets causes a read bias.

So lets play with the first one only.

93% of women have abortions for non-rape, non-medical reasons. Ok. While About women gives a further breakdown of reasons, both fail to really go into the exact why's of an abortion. Like Kustom and I have referenced, women having abortions for non medical reasons may very well still have very good reasons to have an abortion, and I think its very rare for women to abort 'just because' or as a form of contraception.

This is supported by a few of the stats:
The fact that 52% are under 25 meshes well with the reasons for the decisions facts (Too young, postponing, education/career, financial).
54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant. In fact only 8% of women who have abortions admit to not using contraception. This is a HUGE bit of information, showing that the majority of women are being careful with sex. That abortions are the last resort after other contraceptive methods.

A lot of women, the majority, have abortions for non-medical reasons. Does that make their decision less valid?

Kaji

09-11-2005, 10:53 AM

A lot of women, the majority, have abortions for non-medical reasons. Does that make their decision less valid?

In a word, Yes.

PopCulturePooka

09-11-2005, 11:16 AM

In a word, Yes.
Expound.

Imagine a girl living in a near abusive strict-religious environment. Her father is a controlling nasty SOB. She has a bf that her rents don't know about. They have protected sex, yet she somehow still gets pregnant. If her parents were to find out she would have been kicked out on the street or be the reciever of likely ciolent punishment. She is 16. In Australia she can recieve medical treatment without parents knowing. She has an abortion. Considering if she kept the child she'd be raising a kid homeless, jobless, would have to have dropped out of school and without any of ehr family to support her (her bf at least stuck around and supported her decision). Even if she adopted, she still would have aced her fathers wrath.

Her decision to abort is less valid than a medical reason?

Why?

Please, give a decent answer.

Kaji

09-11-2005, 11:23 AM

PopCulturePooka

09-11-2005, 11:30 AM

There is social services for abusive families. If she wants to go back to school, she can give it up for adoption or put it in the care of a relative beyond her parents. There are still options besides having the kid. If she didn't want it that badly, then she shouldn't have spread her legs in the first place.
Next time, your answer really shouldn't be weak sauce. Really.

If she put it up for adoption, she still would have had to face her father and go through with the pregnancy. Which means missing a LOT of school. In Australia missing that much school means repeating a year. Kids who repeat generally fail out. Also, the girl (my aforementioned best friend) worried about her mother should she have left the house. Social services in an earlier investigation had decided that her dad just wasn't quite abusive enough to take action. It was clear as day taht he was a danger and on the edge, but SS wren't willing to help.

Should she have spread her legs? Sorry tahts actually irrelevant in the end.

She ell pregnant. An abortion was the best path.

Tell you what, when you get pregnant or someone you care deeply for in a similar situation does, come here and tell me about the situation.

PopCulturePooka

09-11-2005, 11:32 AM

Maybe I'm weird.

I can't see why abortions are bad.

Its not a life, its cells.

The person an abortion hurts most is the women having it. Its not an easy thing to do. Mentally and physically.

Why do other people get so upset over something someone else does? Why do people try so hard to humanise an undeveloped lump of goo to justify their need to remove anothers freedom over their own body?

Kustom

09-11-2005, 12:00 PM

At this point, I feel like asking for a clarification from everyone involved. Do we all agree that the life/humanity of the foetus in the first month is indeed not established by any evidence but a possibility that different people find more or less likely?

Then, are we all agreed that IF said foetus was in fact not alive/human yet, there would be absolutely nothing wrong about aborption, for whatever reason? Just curious, put no spins on the words used please, yes or no will do.

Azrael

09-11-2005, 04:30 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, sorry if this has already been covered.

A woman's right to choose.

Why does it all fall to the woman? Doesn't the man get a say in it? The child is, genetically, half his. Although the woman is the one who provided the egg, and will carry the child to term for 9 months, that's still the man's sperm in there which fertilized the egg. Doesn't that count for something?

Suppose I get a girl pregnant. She really wants to get an abortion. I don't want her to. I want the kid - if she'll just have it, I'll take it after birth and take care of it all by myself. She never needs to see any of us ever again. But I still don't get a say in this, don't I? She can go get an abortion and I don't have any legal rights to stop her.

Joe

09-11-2005, 04:32 PM

Az - I think in that instance, if she was half a decent woman, she'd probably just give it it you. Or, you may even find another women to carry it to term? I think that's possible at a certain stage.

Azrael

09-11-2005, 04:46 PM

But that is a possible scenario. "I don't want to carry it. I don't want my family and friends to know I got knocked up. I'm trying to get ahead in my job, and I can't afford to take maternity leave now. What if, 20 years later, the kid comes looking for the mother who abandoned him/her?"

If something like this did happen...the man just doesn't have any options. Even the reverse - if he really wanted the abortion but she didn't, he has no leverage whatsoever. ...Of course, the reverse is kinda a bad situation...but as a man, it'd be nice if I had SOME say in the matter.

Joe

09-11-2005, 04:49 PM

It does kind of suck. And sadly, there is nothing we can really do about it. I wouldn't be suprised if some day during the future, we could carry feti to term, but not today... I guess the only thing I can advice is don't knock a woman up.

Also, some people suspect typhoon51 = caseylim who was just banned. Why not see if they share the same IP address.

Praetorian

09-11-2005, 04:51 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Azrael here. But yet, on the other hand, I can also see why the woman doesn't want the man to have any say in it. I don't know, really. I have conflicting thoughts.

bloop

09-11-2005, 05:12 PM

Yes, I can see what you mean about talk shows not being the best place for information.
How about some statistics on abortions?
snip
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

So the best source of information on abortion would be on anti-abortion organizations then?

"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
Statistics can't show you what the woman or girl is going through.
This quote suggests that inconvenience and unwantedness are the ONLY social reasons. At least the about.com site tried not to lump everything in.... "Social reasons" could entail everything from simply not wanting another child to abuse to a woman who has a drug addiction and cannot bring herself to bring a child into her situation.

There is social services for abusive families.
Social services can only do so much. Many people will not even report abuse because they are ashamed or they believe that it is their fault.
It is also not just physical abuse. Keep in mind emotional abuse; it could be as damaging but much harder for social services to intervene.
By the way, do you know how hard it is to find good social workers? Every doctor I've spoken with has said a good social worker is worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, there aren't enough good social workers around for everyone who needs them.

I want the kid - if she'll just have it, I'll take it after birth and take care of it all by myself.
You may be willing to take care of the child, but this doesn't change the fact that she is the one who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor and all the risks that come with that, and all the havoc that having a baby can have on her body (like postpartum depression).
Then after giving birth - If it were your child, wouldn't you want to give it the best chance at being healthy? That would mean breastfeeding, which obviously can't be done by the man. Would that be a responsibility that she should have?
Pregnancy is one of those things that is visible to the world. After giving birth, a woman will have to endure people asking her about her baby and people passing judgments on her when she says that she wants nothing to do with the child. If a man had a child that he wants no part of, he can much more easily get away with it. For a woman, it'll always be there - whether it is in the form of stretch marks or medical records or the dirty looks she'll get from people who think she has no family values.

Kustom

09-11-2005, 05:22 PM

Having been close to that situation and finding myself staring at the stick to see if it was a plus or minus sign (it wasn't one of those that turn blue you see in movies), I felt the complete helplessness of depending on her to make the decision, what ever it may have been (fortunately it was a minus sign).

However, I repressed myself from saying anything and trying to influence her, because ultimately even though it would suck to be made a father against my will, or the other way around, you just can't force a woman to painfully alter her body one way or another if she doesn't want to. It takes two people to make a couple, and I knew from the start than if it came down to this she would be the one making the decision. I had to trust her or else I should not have been with her in the first place.

But yeah, as men we don't get to choose, but it's not like women take us by surprise, you know what the deal is from the start. If having a kid is what you want, then you'd be a complete jerk to force a woman who doesn't want one to carry him; there is no shortage of women who want babies out there... And if she wants to keep it and you don't want it, then you should have been more careful in the first place. At least she will take care of him even if you are heartless enought to run away. This is different from banning aborption altogether, in which case you could end up with no parent wanting to raise the child, and he'd be fucked.

Azrael

09-11-2005, 05:30 PM

Expert Insomniac

09-11-2005, 05:54 PM

Abortion does create difficult situations because there are two people involved, and they may have differing opinions. This can turn out bad for either partner. For a man, he can be forced to become a father when he doesn't want to, or he can lose this chance to be a father because the girl wants to abort. But similarly, a girl can be pressured to abort by family members or the guy even though she doesn't want it, or the guy can say that he wants the baby, and then after it's too late to abort, change his mind and take off leaving her alone.

It's not a perfect system. And people will get hurt. Though, to all the pro-lifers who want to use this as a "you see?" story, keep in mind: there are many imperfect systems we still need. I can guarantee you that right now, there are innocent people wasting away in jail. But does that mean we should get rid of prisons?

And while off topic, I can tell you: yes, it is possible for a woman to falsely convict men of rape (and I'd like to kick those women in the ovaries, personally.) But at the same time, if a girl does get raped and brings her story to the cops, even if she gets it brought to trial the current odds make it far more likely for the guy to get off than get convicted. Not to mention girls have the shame of admitting that they were victimized, a stigma that follows them around, and even their closest friends might not believe them. Yes, it sucks for guys... but it sucks for girls too.

And why is it only the guys who have to worry about sharing their earnings? I happen to know many married couples where the woman earns more than the man. It's not the fifties anymore... it goes both ways. If you're that worried, just get the pre-nup. If she's not out for your money, and does love you (I know how cynical some people on this board are, but I promise you that some people do genuinely fall in love), then she'll agree to sign it.

Or, conversely, he'll agree to sign it. Cause us girls gotta be careful. ^_^

bloop

09-11-2005, 11:05 PM

Thinking about abortion in the context of two people is difficult and may be unfair to the man, but women have a lot more to lose. The man may contribute half of the fetuses genes (I think I can counter this, but that's not the spirit of your argument), but so does the woman.
I would hope that the woman would take into account the man's feelings, but in some cases, that won't happen. In the end, it can't be a simple 50-50 split, because one person has more at stake than the other.
I'm really curious about this. What if the situation was reverse? If a woman got pregnant and wants to keep it, but the man decides he doesn't want it, should she have an abortion against her will?

Also, in addition to what Expert Insomniac said about women earning more, if a man married and then went into horrible debt using their joint account, wouldn't his wife get half of that too? :p

Us (sic) guys gotta be careful.

Cause us girls gotta be careful. ^_^
agreed! :D

Kustom

09-12-2005, 12:51 AM

Yes, women do put in FAR more work in the childbirth process. This is undebateable.

But the kid is still as much the man's as it is the woman's. Does her labor in bringing it to term give her full, 100% authority on whether or not that process actually happens? Again, genetically this kid is just as much his as it is hers.

Suppose I accidentally get some girl pregnant. I'm shocked by the news...but ultimately happy. I'm ready and willing to take care of the kid. But she is determined to abort it. So then...what do I do? Better luck next time? Go impregnate some other woman? That kinda sucks.

There are a few situations where legally, women hold all the power, and I don't really agree with it.

For example, suppose I meet a girl at a party and we hook up. The next day, she decides to call it a rape. If she can prove we had sex, and hell, we did, I'm probably getting prosecuted AT THE VERY LEAST. We may not need to have even had sex. Before it can be proven that I didn't rape her, I've probably already made it at least as far as a courthouse. And I may have lost my job, and the respect of the people in my community.

Also, if I marry a girl, somehow now she is entitled to half of what I own. ...WTF? Doesn't matter if I busted my ass making a fortune for myself which she had NO part of. Doesn't matter if it were HER actions that destroyed the marriage. If I didn't get myself a shiny pre-nup, she gets half of everything I own.

Us guys gotta be careful.

Those are situations that happen only in America, as far as I know. Lawyers are not that almighty elsewhere...

The aborption dilemma is quite simple. Either you do have one, or you don't. 1 or 0. If both parents disagree, then one of them must have the last word in order to take a decision. It's not like you can split it 60/40 or something...
And I don't see how anyone could argue the decision should be the father's rather than the mother's.

Or are you suggesting that every aborption should receive the father's consent, signing a form or something? I can see some of the benefits that would have, but I'm sure there will be situations in which it would really fuck things up.

Kaji

09-12-2005, 01:28 AM

Yet another reason why we should plain outlaw abortion.

bloop

09-12-2005, 02:41 AM

So just take the decision out of the hands of the two people whose opinions matter the most?
Will outlawing abortion stop women from getting them? Or stop doctors from performing them?

Roxie

09-12-2005, 03:17 AM

Yes, women do put in FAR more work in the childbirth process. This is undebateable.

Quite frankly my dear, that's all there is to it.

I know it's unfair, but currently, there ain't shit we can do about that.

Actually, it does pain me, but there's NOTHING you can do about that right now. It would extremely difficult to make legal provisions around this w/o limiting the woman's right to her own body.

Unless you're seriously into researching a way the man can carry the baby like a seahorse, of course.

Will outlawing abortion stop women from getting them? Or stop doctors from performing them?
No, it won't stop the women and they probably won't be "real" doctors either. Many more women would die from bleeding to deat/infection.

Kustom

09-12-2005, 06:24 AM

Ahem, already on the 7th page of that topic, let's try something different.

Instead of throwing our opinions at each other, can we reach a consensus? I'll leave all beliefs at the door, and try to summarize the things we can agree on.

My postulates:
- Whether or not the embryo is alive/human is still open to debate. No one has evidence strong enought to support either side with any certainty. I think the probability that it is is close to 0, you might think it's closer to 1. But both of us don't know it for a fact. Let's face it: science has not uncovered the secrets of life, nor has God said anywhere when he actually puts the soul in a child (unless you are a hardcore Catholic who believes the Pope is the unaltered voice of God, which is probably not the case of most people here).

- Since the embryo being a thing or a human is a probability and not in any way certain, we all have to admit there is a chance that we might be wrong, even a slight one. We just do not know, we guess. This should be enought to keep us all humble. Pro-life people should always be thinking "Abortion is murder, IF the foetus is indeed human" and pro-choice people "There's nothing wrong with abortion IF the foetus is indeed not human". Forget the ifs and things get nasty quicker than is needed.

Keeping in mind that we are dealing with probablities here and not absolutes, let's look at the following table (feel free to add to it):

Abortion pros and cons:

If abortion is authorised

- Possibility of killing a person (probability varies greatly according to one's beliefs)
- Social stigma for the woman (depending on how liberal her environment is and if she can keep the abortion a secret)
- Danger of abortion to the woman's physical and psychologal health (undeniable)
- Possibility that the abortion is made against the father's will (not a likely situation IMO)

If abortion is denied

- Possibility that the child will be raised in a bad environment (likely. After all, if the child is unwanted, the reason is probably that the parents do not have the money, maturity, and/or stability required to raise kids).
- Possibility that no parent will take care of the child (unlikely, at least the mother will probably stick with her kid in most cases. Anyway, there is adoption as a last resort)
- Possibility of the father not being around for the kid (don't know about the actual probability it might happen, but probably more often than I'd like to think). Not good for the kid not to know his father, and social stigma on the woman for being a single mother.
- Danger of pregnancy to the woman's physical and psychological health (undeniable)
- Possibility that the woman will have to quit studying/working (close to 100% during the pregnancy, afterwards depending on the environment. In Japan it would be over 90%, in America much less)
- Possibility that the woman will be rejected by her own family (low, but it happens)

I would have liked to make it an horizontal table but couldn't figure out if it's doable. Now, you can look at this list, and put your own guesses between the brackets. I'm way too lazy to do it, but it is probably possible to find accurate statistics on most items except for the probability that the foetus is human, since it's anyone's guess.
In my case, I think the downsides of denying the right to abort outweight the downsides of allowing it. Once again, thinking about probabilities and not absolutes.

Do you have any thoughts on this? I did my best to not let controversial assumptions slip in, like the right of people to dispose of their own body which not everyone believes in. Feel free to correct me if you disagree on one of the items. I'm not trying to force anyone's hand, here, just trying to start some of you thinking about the other side of the equation.

At the end of the day, before this topic is closed, it would be fun to make a roll call and see if anyone changed his mind at all on the subject after reading the thread. I don't have high hopes but I gave it my best shot.

yao_yao

09-12-2005, 06:31 AM

I think it's sad we live in a world where abortions are sometimes needed.

However, I do believe it is the choice of the parents, and not the state. Who am I to preach whether or not they have to keep the child? Who am I to say when the soul, the chi, watever, enters the embryo? Inconvenient to have a baby? Yes I think that's bad, but I think it's worse to raise a child in an environment that doesnt want it. I'm Buddhist, so I have the venue to saying the child's soul will simply go somewhere else instead.

Roxie

09-12-2005, 10:48 AM

"Aborption
Aborption
aborption
aborption
aborption
Do you have any thoughts on this?
Yeah. Wtf is aborption???

;) :p

Kustom

09-12-2005, 12:46 PM

Hey, I'm not a native speaker... Try and write your posts in French without any spelling mistakes and you'll be my hero for today.

Roxie

09-12-2005, 05:30 PM

Hey, I'm not a native speaker... Try and write your posts in French without any spelling mistakes and you'll be my hero for today.
If I wanted I could.

My dad is fluent.

Just teasing, anyway ;)

Trump

09-12-2005, 05:33 PM

While I will argue against abortion, I know that I am not involved in the situation and that it is not my choice to make. I will support the right of those involved to do what they feel is right.

dama rei

09-12-2005, 07:15 PM

DarkFire168

09-12-2005, 09:02 PM

WARNING: If you aren't prepared to view the reality of abortion, I suggest you don't click the link; some would consider the images disturbing

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKCP0yVDjs4A.AutCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBxbTNpODd 2BHBndANhdl92aWRfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=1292bd3ep/EXP=1126638863/**http%3a//www.youthalternatives.com/aborted%2520baby.htm

Mods, If this is too much, just let me know.

XD That's such a doctored/generated image. And if it isn't, then it's mislabeled. Want to know how I can tell? That baby is in at least the second half of the second trimester. The only time an abortion is allowed after the first trimester is under special circumstances such as when the abortion process is halted by the courts during an investigation (or legal process of any kind), so either A) that baby was still born/prematurely born or B) that's a fake photo or C) It's a legally done abortion that doesn't happen very often, in fact I can only think of one abortion that has been allowed in the second trimester (that I know of), the one where that girl in virginia was raped by her uncle and two cousins and the trial and court mandates prevented her getting an abortion till the third trimester.

bloop

09-12-2005, 11:13 PM

About the "shockingly painful death" for the fetus, I'll refer you to "Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence", an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year. In this review, the authors looked at the results of over 90 quality studies and came to the conclusion that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain before the third trimester. Articles to JAMA go under huge scruntiny before being published. Whether you choose to believe it is your decision (some do not believe it), but the evidence contradicts the claims of painful "deaths" for the fetuses.

Two more things - the picture is of a 21 week old fetus. While second trimester abortions can occur, they are not the norm. Using the site from which the picture came, 90% of abortions are first-trimester.
The group that released these pictures have no idea why the abortion took place. They don't know when; they don't know who. The fetus was preserved, which probably partially accounts for the appearance. There are no details on the abortion other than the gestational age and technique used. Simply said, they don't know.

Sad that some pro-life groups have to resort to exploiting pictures of "innocent babies" to gather support. This particular fetus was found in February 1993 and not buried until that summer, at least three months later.
It is now 12 years later, and the image is still touted as the "reality of abortion".

PopCulturePooka

09-13-2005, 12:24 AM

NERD

09-13-2005, 12:30 AM

Check out bodyworlds.com. It's not really nasty or something, but the way they preserved it just creeps me out. I've been to one of their shows, and man.... I was thinking there's something wrong with the Germans.

dama rei

09-13-2005, 09:01 PM

I've visited a morgue, an abatoir and a dead bodies art exhibit.

This is just a lump of flesh.

And I've seen an autopsy in progress.

We're all just lumps of flesh.

EDIT: I've also seen disected babies at the lab in UTMB.

sgt. pepper

09-13-2005, 09:06 PM

Abortion should be legal everywhere. There's a reason to why people want to do it, and the baby isn't even conscious yet (even if you do it when it is, so what? It's at such a undeveloped stage that it would be like killing a bird or something. Not that i like to kill birds, but i won't weep if i happen to kill one by accident).

Shamu

09-13-2005, 09:58 PM

Having had several miscarriages, one that was later on in the pregnancy, I know the heartache that so many women go through to try and keep the babies they want. So I wouldn't ever have an abortion myself. I'm also a huge advocate for adoption.
However, there are women that still will get abortions for whatever reason, therefore, I think abortion should be legal. Otherwise we just put more women in danger as they will try and find alternate ways to terminate the pregnancy. I also have friends that went through abortions and to this day have psychological issues with it. There is alot to be said about making counceling available before going through the proceedure.
Having said that, I don't believe late term abortions should be legal unless the mother's life is in danger. There comes a certain point while pregnant (alot sooner than most people think) when the baby actually does start to feel things and you start to bond with him/her.

Benaire

09-13-2005, 10:17 PM

Such subjects tend to be so complicated women should be giveing lots of counciling before making such a decision And making it legal is probably a good idea.

Kustom

09-14-2005, 04:39 AM

The main reason why women having had an abortion have such psychological problems is that a lot of people out there do their best to make them feel that way. If the abortion happens in the first weeks like in most cases, there is not much of a bond to speak of.

There seem to be no shortage of abusive people who look down on women who abort, in spite of it being absolutely none of their business, and the fact that they have absolutely no evidence that the embryo is even sentient. They should be the ones going to the shrink in my opinion.

I don't agree that women choosing an aborption should get much more counselling than all pregnant women should. Isn't the hidden point of all this extra counselling to deter her from having an abortion? What's the point of asking:
"Are you sure you don't want the baby? I mean, really sure? You're really really SURE ABOUT IT? THIS CHOICE WILL HAUNT YOU FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!!! THINK AGAIN! You're sure?"
Nice way to make her feel like shit afterwards.

All pregnant women should be given counselling regarding their choice to keep the baby or not, and consider all the factors involved and the consequences of having an abortion AND of having a pregnancy. No extra councelling for abortion, unless you are actively trying to discourage women from aborting because it's "eeeviiiil". Is that what you think?

dama rei

09-14-2005, 08:50 PM

unless you are actively trying to discourage women from aborting because it's "eeeviiiil"

How else is Man to describe killings in the name of convenience?

Roxie

09-14-2005, 09:23 PM

How else is Man to describe killings in the name of convenience?
wow, I guess they can't if they can't think of other reasons besides "convenience".

NERD

09-14-2005, 09:33 PM

25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% – Want no (more) children
3.3% – Risk to fetal health
2.8% – Risk to maternal health
2.1% – Rape, incest, other

This is something I've dug up from Wikipedia, a survey of women from 27 countries on why they wanted an abortion.

While I am all for every life is precious, and don't like abortions at all, I still believe it is the women's choice, for the strain of bearing a child and raising it is placed on the mother with not much support.

Trump

09-14-2005, 10:05 PM

So according to that, at least 50% of abortions are a direct result of poor decision-making on the part of those sexaully active? Sigh....

bloop

09-14-2005, 10:16 PM

How else is Man to describe killings in the name of convenience?
That might be your opinion of evil, but it's not mine. I don't consider abortion "killing", but that goes back to Kustom's post on page 7.

Saying that abortions are out of convenience is just a euphemistic way of saying that the women are being selfish. The idea of convenience seems to suggest that women simply go "Oh damn, I'm pregnant again. Better head down to the old abortion mill." (Abortion mill is the term I ran across when I went digging into pro-life sites.)
If I got pregnant for some reason out of my control and had an abortion right now, I would check off "to postpone childbearing" because I don't think that a child deserves to grow up with a mother who is constantly at school and there are no other children to play with and no father. Maybe I don't think a child should have a mother who can't truly enjoy being with the child. Maybe it's NOT because I was thinking I have no time in my life for a child right now.

Even if it were, why should the government have a right to tell them what to do with their bodies?
Pretend for a moment that I think a fetus is a life, and life is sacred and blah blah blah. Can the government tell you - assume that you are perfectly healthy and that there are no risks to you - to donate one of your kidneys to someone who will die otherwise? Why do you get the right to refuse knowing that someone will die as a result?
Let's not even say kidney. Hell, look at the shortage of blood. One hour for most people, and people won't do it knowing it can save lives.
Whoa, going off on a tangent there. oops.

If I were immoral for wanting an abortion, why would you want me raising a child anyway??
I'd love to see an answer to this question that doesn't involve adoption. Adoption is a great thing, but it's not the easy cure-all that some people make it out to be.

setrict

09-14-2005, 10:37 PM

Even if it were, why should the government have a right to tell them what to do with their bodies?
Pretend for a moment that I think a fetus is a life, and life is sacred and blah blah blah. Can the government tell you - assume that you are perfectly healthy and that there are no risks to you - to donate one of your kidneys to someone who will die otherwise? Why do you get the right to refuse knowing that someone will die as a result?
Let's not even say kidney. Hell, look at the shortage of blood. One hour for most people, and people won't do it knowing it can save lives.
Whoa, going off on a tangent there. oops.

As someone who is against abortion, I have to say that this is the best argument for it (legally) that I've seen so far in this thread. The only difference I see is that that example is missing the cause-effect relationship of sexual activity and pregnancy. There are exceptions, but pregnancy is generally caused by voluntary participation in sexual activity. It may not be planned (pop, woops, forgot pill, stupid, whatever), but the key is voluntary participation.

What if we changed your example to someone who would die unless they had a kidney transplant, and that you were a direct and willful cause of that persons condition. Then you'd be closer to a comparison with abortion and a woman's body.

Damn good argument though :)

25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% – Want no (more) childre

91.9 % from voluntary participation, and arguably matters of 'convenience'.

NERD

09-14-2005, 10:45 PM

Ultimately the best thing would be rendering the men temporarily impotent by means of pills and whatnot- women go under the pressure of having to take care of herself not to get pregnant, compared to the men. I know a lot of women use both condoms and pills just to prevent pregnancies, whereas men may not be that inclined for birth control.

Of course, I know most men will NEVER like the idea of being impotent, even if it has nothing to do with sexual performance. :P

Kustom

09-15-2005, 07:03 AM

How else is Man to describe killings in the name of convenience?

That's your opinion, but it's just that. An opinion. Be honest with yourself, you don't know for a fact whether or not it's killing, it's your guess. My guess is different, and as valid as yours as far as we can tell. You or I just might be wrong, so this should be enought to make us cautious about dealing in absolutes, like "good" and "evil".

I assumed Shamu, Roxie and others didn't think that way when they advocate extra-counselling for women wanting an abortion... Nevertheless extra-counselling is a means towards reducing the number of abortion, so it only makes sense if you think abortion is bad.

Kustom

09-15-2005, 07:05 AM

So according to that, at least 50% of abortions are a direct result of poor decision-making on the part of those sexaully active? Sigh....

If people have especially poor decision making, then it's probably right that they DON'T raise kids until they're ready.

Kustom

09-15-2005, 07:10 AM

91.9 % from voluntary participation, and arguably matters of 'convenience'.

"Convenience" for the mother, or "convenience" for the child, the father, the family? "Convenience" is a very vague word, and each of those categories can hide some excrutiating personnal dramas. If your husband is shipping off to Irak, you might wanna "postpone child-bearing". Why is it so wrong?

Roxie

09-15-2005, 01:11 PM

I assumed Roxie and others didn't think that way when they advocate extra-counselling for women wanting an abortion...
I did not advocate this.

I would suggest conseuling only afterwards with a choice of unaffiliated psychologists.

Trump

09-15-2005, 01:38 PM

If people have especially poor decision making, then it's probably right that they DON'T raise kids until they're ready.

Taking this logic further, they should also not be allowed to have sex. That would also eliminate the problem.

Roxie

09-15-2005, 02:00 PM

Taking this logic further, they should also not be allowed to have sex. That would also eliminate the problem.
good luck enforcing that one. :rolleyes:

setrict

09-15-2005, 04:00 PM

and each of those categories can hide some excrutiating personnal dramas. If your husband is shipping off to Irak, you might wanna "postpone child-bearing". Why is it so wrong?

That we do not agree on whether or not abortion is killing is the crux of the matter. In my mind abortion is killing, and therefore wrong. Personal drama does not give a person the right to kill. No amount of personal drama short of something life threatening* will ever make the act justifiable so long as I believe abortion is the taking of human life.

You on the other hand do not believe abortion is the taking of human life, and subsequently feel differently. If I was certain that life was not possible in the first trimester, I would feel exactly the same as you do for abortion during that period.

The only argument that is capable of convincing me to change my stance on abortion would be one that sufficiently proved when the change from cell cluster to person happens. Any argument based on the assumption that abortion is not killing is completely useless as persuasion because the assumption is truly the heart of the issue. Likewise, my assumption that abortion is killing makes me ineffective at persuading you ;)

* HUGE difference between life-threatening, and lifestyle-threatening.

bloop

09-15-2005, 09:49 PM

What if we changed your example to someone who would die unless they had a kidney transplant, and that you were a direct and willful cause of that persons condition. Then you'd be closer to a comparison with abortion and a woman's body.

True, and still, the government doesn't legislate in cases like that. If a doctor negligently administered a medicine to someone that put them in renal failure, she would have no legal obligation to give the person a kidney. Her license might be revoked, she might be censured, she will have a malpractice suit on her hands, and at the most, she will be found guilty of gross negligence and put into jail. The government still have no say over her body.

I don't think people can ever truly come to a consensus on the moral part of the argument. Even if undeniable proof came out saying that a fetus isn't a person until birth or that a conceptus is a person as soon as it implants in the uterus, there will still be people arguing over it. No law fits with EVERY person's moral code.

Damn good argument though :)
As you can see, I like debating this topic. :p

Enjoy

09-15-2005, 10:14 PM

Hey, I don't care which side of the arguement you're on. If you don't like abortion then don't get an abortion. I don't see how you have to force your beliefs on others.

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

dama rei

09-15-2005, 11:52 PM

That's your opinion, but it's just that. An opinion. Be honest with yourself, you don't know for a fact whether or not it's killing, it's your guess. My guess is different, and as valid as yours as far as we can tell. You or I just might be wrong, so this should be enought to make us cautious about dealing in absolutes, like "good" and "evil".

I assumed Shamu, Roxie and others didn't think that way when they advocate extra-counselling for women wanting an abortion... Nevertheless extra-counselling is a means towards reducing the number of abortion, so it only makes sense if you think abortion is bad.

No, it's killing.

Not giving a dying person your kidney is simply letting someone die as a result of their own poor decisions. '

People die every day.
People are killed every day.

Do not confuse the two.

To consciously stamp out life, be it the primitive beginnings or a twenty year old man is killing. There is no question in my mind.

Hey, I don't care which side of the arguement you're on. If you don't like abortion then don't get an abortion. I don't see how you have to force your beliefs on others.

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

It's the same reason a good person would try to stop a school shooting.

We force our beliefs on others every day.

Jon885

09-15-2005, 11:56 PM

I'm not really sure. Each time I form an opinion about this someone else has a contradicting opinion that seems valid.

Kustom

09-16-2005, 04:28 AM

That we do not agree on whether or not abortion is killing is the crux of the matter. In my mind abortion is killing, and therefore wrong.

snip

The only argument that is capable of convincing me to change my stance on abortion would be one that sufficiently proved when the change from cell cluster to person happens. Any argument based on the assumption that abortion is not killing is completely useless as persuasion because the assumption is truly the heart of the issue. Likewise, my assumption that abortion is killing makes me ineffective at persuading you ;)

That is absolutely right, unfortunately... Even if we disagree, I like the way you think. :o

Kustom

09-16-2005, 04:36 AM

To consciously stamp out life, be it the primitive beginnings or a twenty year old man is killing. There is no question in my mind.

Where do you place the "primitive beginning", then? Are you for or against the morning after pill (which is taken up to 3 days after the sperm met the egg), is it killing too?

I respect the wisdom of nature, but I don't think we should be slaves to it or we shouldn't have tried to get down the trees and wear clothes in the first place. To me, the only fundamental difference between wearing a condom and taking the morning-after-pill/ or aborting, is that the later stops the natural process after it started. But why is the start of the natural process itself so important? The fact that we help each other if there is a school killing doesn't come from our natural instincts, which command us to run away, but from a certain view of solidarity with fellow human beings. This is a very human concept, therefore it is ours to define, not nature's.

Expert Insomniac

09-16-2005, 08:30 AM

I have a question for all the pro-lifers out there.

Here's a hypothetical situation: There's a young couple, been married for a few years, just starting to get off the ground. Both work, trying hard to get ahead in their fields. They're not ready for kids, being so focused on their careers and living in a one bedroom apartment, so the wife is on birth control. One night, she comes home really upset after a hard day, and while her husband comforts her they end up making love. However, she was so upset she forgot to take her pill that day, and the sperm gets in just in time for her to get pregnant.

Would it be wrong for this married couple to get an abortion? Keep in mind, they can't afford a child. And the wife works in such a competitive field that even if she were to carry the child and give it up for adoption, the time off she'd have to take would edge her out of a key promotion. Maybe she has a job, like modeling, where carrying a baby could damage her career. Everyone talks about how girls should just make the choice to not spread their legs... keep in mind, abortions happen in married couples too. Shoudl they be punished? If you say yes, the abortion is still wrong... then does that mean adult married couples can only have sex if they're prepared to have children?

It's easy to look at situations in black and white when you're not affected by it.

DarkFire168

09-16-2005, 09:34 AM

Short and simple:

All anti-abortion points are that A) it's against god's will/it's a sin or B) it's murder or C) Both A and B.

A) Prove god exists first. When you do that, this becomes a legitimate reason to deny women the right to an abortion.

B) While each individual cell is alive, the fetus is not concious until AT LEAST the brain is formed. As the brain does not form until the 3rd trimester, the fetus is therefore not alive until that point. Furthermore, as Kustom (I think) pointed out, a man's sperm are alive, therefore if you masturbate you are committing murder. Even abstinence is murder in this light because you're not even trying to procreate. So quit saying it's murder. It's not. If you over sensitize something like this by throwing out your whiny emotional drival, then everything is murder or horrific, etc.

Finally, I think Az is right. Men should have the right to have a hand in the decision. If a woman doesn't want a child and a man does, then I think he has every right to reimburse her for 9 months of pregnancy clothes, food and other expenditures, and then become the single father of the child at birth. If the woman wants the baby, and the man doesn't she can still have it after all, why not the other way around?

Also, some food for thought. Women will always find ways to abort unwanted children, would you rather that your decisions murdered the mother as well as the child?

bloop

09-16-2005, 09:48 PM

Not giving a dying person your kidney is simply letting someone die as a result of their own poor decisions. '

Whoa, a little judgmental there? That's a huge assumption - how many people *choose* to have a fatal disease? Not everything is caused by poor decisions. You can live your life as perfect as a person possibly can and still end up with cancer. You could be a day old and have a life-threatening defect.

People die every day.
People are killed every day.
Do not confuse the two.
I am certain some family members of such a person would think otherwise.... which was the point. You don't consider it killing, but someone else does. Should control over your body be taken away because of someone else's beliefs? From your statements, I get the sense the answer is no (correct me if I'm wrong), yet you're arguing that abortions should be illegal because of your beliefs.

dama rei

09-16-2005, 10:51 PM

Whoa, a little judgmental there? That's a huge assumption - how many people *choose* to have a fatal disease? Not everything is caused by poor decisions. You can live your life as perfect as a person possibly can and still end up with cancer. You could be a day old and have a life-threatening defect.

I am certain some family members of such a person would think otherwise.... which was the point. You don't consider it killing, but someone else does. Should control over your body be taken away because of someone else's beliefs? From your statements, I get the sense the answer is no (correct me if I'm wrong), yet you're arguing that abortions should be illegal because of your beliefs.

My mistake, I was thinking liver.

haha... more than you know, bloop.

http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/t198886-abortion-videos.html

A thread which looks at the debate from a different light.