Abortion: Right or Wrong.

[mgb]

So what do you think? Was Roe vs. Wade the way to go? Should women have the right to abort a fetus or are they killing lives?

From what I could see, this hasn't popped up directly here. So now it has.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Oh boy..

[Shai Gar]

she has the right to choose abortion, and better.

[indie]

I predict INTPs will have a majority vote for "right to choose" if you know what I mean. . . ;)

[mgb]

I predict INTPs will have a majoity vote for "right to choose" if you know what I mean. . . ;)

Are you threatening us?

[Warrior413]

I have no problem with abortion.

They're gonna die anyway. ;P

[snarled]

I believe that a life begins at the point of conception.

People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.

If you have no qualms about killing someone for a particular reason go right ahead...

Silent Scream by Slayer...great song.

[songbird36]

Well I had this choice to face 9 years ago, and in the end, I couldn't do it.

For that I am now hugely thankful...

[indie]

Are you threatening us?

I'd respond with an alogical statement, but this thread is still in its "fetus" stage.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.


I believe that a life begins at the point of conception.

[songbird36]

By the way Roe v Wade didn't authorise abortion on demand. This is what it decided:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.


(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.


(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

[s0978]

Well I had this choice to face 9 years ago, and in the end, I couldn't do it.

For that I am now hugely thankful...

But does that mean you think it's wrong in an absolute sense, for everyone?

[snarled]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by snarled
People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.




Quote:
Originally Posted by snarled
I believe that a life begins at the point of conception.


Note the word 'point'

[Boneca]

I think it's better to kill an embryo than to give birth to an unwanted child.

And perhaps it's just my biological "bias", but there is no way I can see how a lump of cells could be equal to a human being. Do you believe a fertilized egg cell has a soul? (I'm asking you, because I don't know what a soul is.)

[indie]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note the word 'point'

Isn't that a fascinating word, "point"? So . . . what *is* the point?

Ah, yes. Here we go . . .

[flan2dave]

Except in the extreme cases of rape, abortion seems unnecessary with all the precautions one can take to prevent conception in the first place. I'm going to guess that statistics show, for places where abortion is legal, a relatively low percentage of all the abortions are done because of rape. Since I don't know, feel free to refute or affirm this statement. If this is the case, it shows a lack of responsibility is a more pressing concern than determining what arbitrary philosphical stance to take on abortion.

[Star]

Except in the extreme cases of rape, abortion seems unnecessary with all the precautions one can take to prevent conception in the first place.

I see, so the punishment for a split second of lust is a lifetime of motherhood? Fuck.

[songbird36]

I was fairly pro-abortion until I was actually faced with the decision.

That brought a whole lot of other feelings and considerations into play. I would say that anyone faced with this decision (regardless of their philosophical stance) is likely to find it extremely difficult and painful.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note the word 'point'

you're simply drawing an arbitrary line sooner

[Claverhouse]

I voted against abortion, both because it's murder and I think a Woman's ( or Man's ) Right to Choose is a load of crock.

Nonetheless, it doesn't bother me much, because a lot of worse things happen ( although I have no doubt it is excruciatingly painful for the baby ). I'd be a lot happier with the killers if they cheerfully said 'Yes, it is murder: but it many circumstances we believe murder's the way to go.'



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Bugeater]

I say if it's within my body, I have the right to kill it.

[snarled]

Isn't that a fascinating word, "point"? So . . . what *is* the point?

Ah, yes. Here we go . . .

If I could de-edit Sir Isaac's post I would.

The 'point' was that he was saying my two quotes were a contradictory fallacy.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I say if it's within my body, I have the right to kill it.

If someone sticks their dick in you, does it make it yours?

(see below for less offensive version)

[songbird36]

Why should that be relevant?

What's the difference between a child inside and outside your body? You wouldn't kill your child once born, would you?

[snarled]

you're simply drawing an arbitrary line sooner

Hmmm...could you elaborate.

I thought that conception was pretty fundamental to human life. I mean, if there was no conception there would be no abortion issue right?

[flan2dave]

I see, so the punishment for a split second of lust is a lifetime of motherhood? Fuck.

If you're certain right off, no big deal in getting rid of a small group of cells.

[songbird36]

I thought that conception was pretty fundamental to human life. I mean, if there was no conception there would be no abortion issue right?

Haha - can I start an oxymoron quote thread?

:lol:

[Bugeater]

Why should that be relevant?

What's the difference between a child inside and outside your body? You wouldn't kill your child once born, would you?
I would never have a child in the first place. And if I ever get pregnant, despite using contraception, I'm sure as hell going to have an abortion. To me, the inside/outside of the body distinction is that it can't survive on it's own until a certain point when it's inside the body...and usually, by the time the fetus has reached that point, the choice has been made whether or not to actually carry the child to term.

[Eileen]

ahh, the title of this thread is misleading. I thought you were asking whether abortion is right or wrong (in a moral sense). You kind of are, but you're also talking about the issue of legality, which I think is a related but also separate can of worms.

My answer: Yes, abortion is wrong. But sometimes bringing a child into the world is wrong also, and a woman sometimes has to make a choice between two wrong things--and sometimes what's more wrong than the other in one case is not more wrong than the other in another case.

[indie]

Haha - can I start an oxymoron quote thread?

:lol: indeed you should.

Though I don't know what "point" you (snarled) were referring to, I was referring to the "point" of conception. What is the point of conception? What is a point at all? Boiled down, that is what abortion is all about.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Hmmm...could you elaborate.
If you don't provide reason for your choice, it is by definition arbitrary.

[snarled]

Haha - can I start an oxymoron quote thread?

:lol:


Yup...you can't kill a baby that don't exist. ;)

Boneca raised the crux of the moral issue first with mention of the 'soul'.

[songbird36]

Someone says "life begins here" and places a marker.
You pick up the marker, move it back two feet, and then say "No, it's here"

It doesn't matter if your line is further back. If you don't provide reason for your choice, it is by definition arbitrary.

Agreed.

[Elro]

I would never have a child in the first place. And if I ever get pregnant, despite using contraception, I'm sure as hell going to have an abortion. To me, the inside/outside of the body distinction is that it can't survive on it's own until a certain point when it's inside the body...and usually, by the time the fetus has reached that point, the choice has been made whether or not to actually carry the child to term.
And this distinction is valid because..? It is likely that it would develop to the point where it could survive on its own if it WEREN'T killed.

I can see both popular views with this issue.. However, I can't see yours. I would hope that anyone with the choice of abortion would ONLY use it in special cases. I'm all for banning it with only a few exceptions, because the idea of the power being abused is just terrible.

I would hope you would at least go on to regret it if you did have an abortion. This was my assumption for a long time - that it would be a horrible decision for the mother. I must say it astounds me that you can say without a doubt that you would have an abortion if you became pregnant.

[Star]

I would hope you would at least go on to regret it if you did have an abortion. This was my assumption for a long time - that it would be a horrible decision for the mother.

Yes, yes. More punishment please. How about the men who encourage the women to have abortions. Are they to suffer from a life of guilt as well?

[songbird36]

Whoever said a fetus is just a cluster of cells is wrong. It is a cluster of cells with its own independent life and genetic blueprint, independent from its host (the mother).

The fact that the fetus may depend on her for support is irrelevant. A child outside the womb also depends on its mother, or caregiver, for support. That does not detract from the child's right to life.

[Elro]

Yes, yes. More punishment please. How about the men who encourage the women to have abortions. Are they to suffer from a life of guilt as well?
That is a good point. Ideally, they would, but realistically they probably wouldn't. I don't know for sure, as I don't plan to be one of those men.

[snarled]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Lime
"Someone says "life begins here" and places a marker.
You pick up the marker, move it back two feet, and then say "No, it's here"

It doesn't matter if your line is further back. If you don't provide reason for your choice, it is by definition arbitrary."



Okay. Let's take it back further then.

I've got little tadpole things swimming round my nutsac. Some woman in Norway has an egg that needs fertilizing. If my starting point (conception) is so arbitrary for a life, are you saying that I should be able to abort my hypothetical fetus?

Conception seems to be a sensible starting point (for all intents and purposes) for an uniquely individual life to me...

[Bugeater]

And this distinction is valid because..? It is likely that it would develop to the point where it could survive on its own if it WEREN'T killed.
Because I feel that it's my choice whether or not the fetus lives while it depends on my body to survive. An unwanted child is the same as an unwanted parasite, in my mind. Call me cruel, but that's how I see it.

I would hope you would at least go on to regret it if you did have an abortion. This was my assumption for a long time - that it would be a horrible decision for the mother. I must say it astounds me that you can say without a doubt that you would have an abortion if you became pregnant.
And I very much doubt that I'd regret the decision to have an abortion. I don't want to spend years of my life taking care of an unwanted child.

The fact that the fetus may depend on her for support is irrelevant. A child outside the womb also depends on its mother, or caregiver, for support. That does not detract from the child's right to life.
Yes, but without that support, the child still couldn't survive on it's own. Why should people bring unwanted children into the world?

[flan2dave]

Calling it "just a cluster of cells" doesn't disclude the fact that it is a potential life. It certainly is, but there are other important factors to weigh in to decide if that potential is to be realized.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Yes, abortion is wrong. But sometimes bringing a child into the world is wrong also

Then would you ever say, "Yes, life is wrong. But sometimes terminating a pregnancy is also"

[Elro]

And I very much doubt that I'd regret the decision to have an abortion. I don't want to spend years of my life taking care of an unwanted child.
Thing is, I don't know about you, but I can't predict what my wants will be like years from now. And specifically I wouldn't firmly make life/death decisions this far in advance without knowledge of what the situation will be like.

[songbird36]

I don't buy the argument that it may be wrong in the circumstances to bring the child into the world. There are plenty of childless couples happy to adopt a child born in unhappy circumstances - I personally know two couples who have made a great job of adoption. I think this should be seen as another irrelevant argument in favour of abortion.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Lime
"Someone says "life begins here" and places a marker.
You pick up the marker, move it back two feet, and then say "No, it's here"

It doesn't matter if your line is further back. If you don't provide reason for your choice, it is by definition arbitrary."



Okay. Let's take it back further then.

I've got little tadpole things swimming round my nutsac. Some woman in Norway has an egg that needs fertilizing. If my starting point (conception) is so arbitrary for a life, are you saying that I should be able to abort my hypothetical fetus?

Conception seems to be a sensible starting point (for all intents and purposes) for an uniquely individual life to me...

Once again, it doesn't matter how far you move the point back. Saying "Life begins in my nutsack" is yet again drawing an arbitrary line across a contiuous process. And calling the choice "sensible" doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

I think that you're confusing the words "arbitrary" and "wrong".

[Eileen]

Then would you ever say, "Yes, life is wrong. But sometimes terminating a pregnancy is also"


Mmmmm, no. I wouldn't phrase it that way.

I might say, "Yes, bringing an unwanted child into a world of suffering and poverty is wrong."

I do think that abortion is always wrong and I don't believe that bringing a child into the world is always wrong (and sometime's it's terribly wrong). Either way, it's ultimately a woman's decision which wrong thing she's going to choose, and you won't see me standing in her way or judging her when she had no good "right" option. Sometimes we just have to do the best that we can do, and sometimes the best that we can do is still wrong.

[CoHo]

I do think that abortion is always wrong
What if it was determined to be life threatening (moreso then usual) for the woman to bear the child?

What if you had a 14 year old daughter that was raped and you could just have her take a morning after pill?

[snarled]

Once again, it doesn't matter how far you move the point back. Saying "Life begins in my nutsack" is yet again drawing an arbitrary line across a contiuous process.

I think that you're confusing the words "arbitrary" and "wrong".

I think your confusing the word life. I thought we were talking about killing a uniquely individual human being here. Not the experiance of 'life' in general as taught by Mufasa.

A sperm is not a 'life'.

An egg is not a 'life'.

Sperm + egg = 'life''.

Agreed?

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I do think that abortion is always wrong .

Yes, abortion is wrong.

My point is that you can't logically say "x is wrong". It just never applies universally and weakens the sound of your argument.

[Eileen]

I don't buy the argument that it may be wrong in the circumstances to bring the child into the world. There are plenty of childless couples happy to adopt a child born in unhappy circumstances - I personally know two couples who have made a great job of adoption. I think this should be seen as another irrelevant argument in favour of abortion.

And I personally know a woman who had to make the decision between having an abortion or going off her medications and spending her pregnancy and longer in a psychiatric hospital.

Until I witnessed that incredibly difficult and heartbreaking decision, I had the same opinion as you.

[Bugeater]

I don't buy the argument that it may be wrong in the circumstances to bring the child into the world. There are plenty of childless couples happy to adopt a child born in unhappy circumstances - I personally know two couples who have made a great job of adoption. I think this should be seen as another irrelevant argument in favour of abortion.
Yeah, but you're assuming that all children put up for adoption are in fact adopted (and by nice families, at that)...which is certainly not the case. Think of all the minority children that no one wants to adopt. They're living under the care of social services...in group homes or in foster families. I've read about what happens to a lot of those children and the stuff they go through does not sound pleasant.

[booyalab]

I dont like the way this poll is worded. The title defines this issue as a moral one: right vs. wrong. But the poll options define it by rights. Just because someone has the 'right' to do something doesn't make it morally right.

[songbird36]

Where the life or health of the mother is threatened it becomes more ethically complex.

Where the pregnancy is the result of rape it isn't ethically complex (in my view). The child has a right to be born and can then be adopted if necessary.

[Eileen]

My point is that you can't logically say "x is wrong". It just never applies universally and weakens the sound of your argument.

Well, if you have a religious faith, which I do, you can say that something is morally wrong. YOU don't have to agree with it, and I don't have to follow your rules of logic all the damn time.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I think your confusing the word life. I thought we were talking about killing a uniquely individual human being here. Not the experiance of 'life' in general as taught by Mufasa.

A sperm is not a 'life'.

An egg is not a 'life'.

Sperm + egg = 'life''.

Agreed?

Everything you said here is completly irrelevant to what we were discussing.

[Eileen]

What if it was determined to be life threatening (moreso then usual) for the woman to bear the child?

What if you had a 14 year old daughter that was raped and you could just have her take a morning after pill?

I still think that it's a moral problem because I believe that human life is precious and begins at conception. It's an entirely subjective statement, I recognize, and am not trying to impose it as a universal truth. To me, abortion is always morally wrong. That does NOT mean that I believe that it is always the wrong choice or that I think it should be illegal.

[flan2dave]

Well, I said to begin with it seems unnecessary - adoption gives further credence to that view. Deepsky snapping at me caused me to second guess myself about whether or not there are valid circumstances (I'm not sure at this point by any means, I haven't the experience, knowledge, or wisdom).

[Star]

I think your confusing the word life. I thought we were talking about killing a uniquely individual human being here.

So is it ok to abort 4/5 monozygotic quintuplet fetuses?


;)

[Sir Isaac Lime]

abortion is always wrong


sometimes bringing a child into the world is wrong

Please explain this.

And what if aborting the child was the only way to save the mother?

"x is wrong" is wrong

[songbird36]

Yeah, but you're assuming that all children put up for adoption are in fact adopted (and by nice families, at that)...which is certainly not the case. Think of all the minority children that no one wants to adopt. They're living under the care of social services...in group homes or in foster families. I've read about what happens to a lot of those children and the stuff they go through does not sound pleasant.

Social services need to do a better job then. I would be quite comfortable adopting a child of a different race (personally).

In New Zealand abortion is available during the first trimester only if a woman is assessed as likely to suffer "physical or mental harm" as a result of the pregnancy. However the "mental harm" criterion is so loosely applied that it virtually equates to abortion on demand.

When I presented to my doctor and told him I was pregnant (and he confirmed it), he then asked if I wanted an abortion. I was not asked about my mental state.

[snarled]

Everything you said here is completly irrelevant to what we were discussing.

Bollocks. Though I admit it was becoming tiring breaking that down for you.

Meh. I think what Eileen does...

[kruT]

The female has the right, provided she wants the right.
The male has the right to not put his dilly in the hoo hoo.

Isn't it true that the maternal instinct, with an aborted baby, does a number on women's psyche?

[snarled]

So is it ok to abort 4/5 monozygotic quintuplet fetuses?


;)

Yeah....chuck those growths in a blender! :lol:

[Star]

Isn't it true that the maternal instinct, with an aborted baby, does a number on women's psyche?

It certainly can, with people like Elro around to tell them how guilty they should feel.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Bollocks. Though I admit it was becoming tiring breaking that down for you.

I hope you feel like a jackass when you read that later.

You've been missing the point the whole time. You say that life begins at conception, but the only reason for this choice is because "it's sensible". Can you even define what concious life is? If not, then how can you claim with such arrogance that you know when it starts?

And you're still not understanding the concept of "drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process" even though you tout the notion as some kind of defense to your argument. Do you realize that you contradicted yourself?

[Bugeater]

Social services need to do a better job then.
Sure, they do...but if people weren't having unwanted children in the first place...

[Boneca]

I say if it's within my body, I have the right to kill it.I just want to say that I agree with you, and most of my female friends do too. I don't find this view controversial at all, but I find it hard to explain it in a way that will not make religious people explode.

The key is that you have to accept that some people don't think humans have "souls", but that humans are just mammals with exceptionally large brains.
I think it is much worse to kill an adult pig (a highly sentient being) than to kill an embryo (that hasn't yet developed senses), yet people do that without even thinking twice.

Also, I never understood the argument of "potential life". That something has the potential to be something doesn't make it equal to what actually is.

[Eileen]

Please explain this.

And what if aborting the child was the only way to save the mother?

"x is wrong" is wrong


There are lots of reasons why bringing a child into the world might be wrong. Example--I teach a lot of young girls who get knocked up in high school and have their babies. These same girls are the daughters of former teenage mothers, so I think it's safe to assume that it's a viscious cycle. These children are being brought into poverty and very frequently abusive situations. I think that's a moral problem of willfully bringing a child into the world. Another moral problem: the issue of overpopulation--is it morally right to bring a child (another mouth to feed) into the world when there are already so many children who are going hungry (yeah, I recognize the problems with this particular argument)? Is it morally right to create another human to take up space and consume the earth's resources?


As for aborting the child to save the mother--it's STILL a moral dilemma to me. You're choosing one life over the other, assigning one life more worth than the other. In the end, you have to terminate human life (which, when one does not willfully choose that end for himself, I define as murder--conceptually, not legally). Do I think that abortion is the wrong choice? NO! It's the RIGHT wrong thing to do. I think that people have to make choices between shitty options all the time; I'm not making a judgment on the state of anyone's soul or salvation. I take for granted that sometimes we have to do wrong things because we live in a sinful world. We can do what we can to avoid it, but at some point, people are going to have two options, will HAVE to choose, and neither option seems like a good one.


And as for "x is wrong is wrong," I've already addressed that this is a subjective viewpoint that is influenced by two things: religious faith and personal experiences. If you think my way of thinking is wrong, that's fine, whatever. I'm not sorry and you don't have to be either. I have spent years coming to terms with this issue and am doing everything in my power so that I never personally have to face it and make that decision.

[Claverhouse]

Yes, yes. More punishment please. How about the men who encourage the women to have abortions. Are they to suffer from a life of guilt as well?
Hopefully.

---

And a line is the shortest distance between two points, not a point.

---

And I certainly agree with you nazis on not bringing a deformed ( tetragenic or otherwise ) life into the world; nor in cases of rape, because rape is a serious moral crime, and it would be awful for the child to know his or her father was so evil.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Mind you, I'm intrigued by the concept of a new life as an unwanted parasite. ]

[Sir Isaac Lime]

As for aborting the child to save the mother--it's STILL a moral dilemma to me. You're choosing one life over the other, assigning one life more worth than the other. In the end, you have to terminate human life (which, when one does not willfully choose that end for himself, I define as murder--conceptually, not legally). Do I think that abortion is the wrong choice? NO! It's the RIGHT wrong thing to do. I think that people have to make choices between shitty options all the time; I'm not making a judgment on the state of anyone's soul or salvation. I take for granted that sometimes we have to do wrong things because we live in a sinful world. We can do what we can to avoid it, but at some point, people are going to have two options, will HAVE to choose, and neither option seems like a good one.

What about a situation where, if the child is not aborted, both mother and child will die. Is abortion wrong then?

[mgb]

I am surprised that no one has brought the death penalty into this yet.

[flan2dave]

And I certainly agree with you nazis on not bringing a deformed ( tetragenic or otherwise ) life into the world; nor in cases of rape, because rape is a serious moral crime, and it would be awful for the child to know his or her father was so evil.

It would be awful, but something the child can live with (no pun intended) if he/she were raised by non-evil people.

[Eileen]

What about a situation where, if the child is not aborted, both mother and child will die. Is abortion wrong then?

*rolls eyes* Yeah, I guess I still think that's a moral dilemma to some extent, but again, there's a clear right (correct) choice. When you get into all of this mother endangerment stuff and push it to this limit, of course the issue of morality gets complicated, which is why I don't advocate legislating all moral beliefs.

[Serotonin]

The key is that you have to accept that some people don't think humans have "souls", but that humans are just mammals with exceptionally large brains.

Hoo boy, here we go.

My position: A woman has a right to an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

My reasons:
- Women are smart enough in that time to realise they are pregnant, and decide whether they want to keep the child or abort.

- Termination is an ugly but natural aspect of human evolutionary biology. Women will terminate, whether in a doctors surgery or in a backyard shed with a knitting needle if they know they do not want to bear their child. No amount of legislation or law enforcement will bring down abortion rates anywhere. It just happens, and will continue to happen.

- There is no evidence of foetal neurological development advanced enough to respond to stimuli in the first trimester that would warrant a definition of a foetus experiencing pain or touch.
http://www.transformations.net.nz/trancescript/neurology.html

Any contradicting evidence is welcome.

As for the "living independently outside of the womb" I read somewhere that the threshold for this is about 23 weeks. But by then a foetus has developed touch sensations so I would still not condone abortions from 13-23 weeks.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

*rolls eyes* Yeah, I guess I still think that's a moral dilemma to some extent, but again, there's a clear right (correct) choice. When you get into all of this mother endangerment stuff and push it to this limit, of course the issue of morality gets complicated, which is why I don't advocate legislating all moral beliefs.

So what is the clear and correct choice? Letting both die or aborting the child?

[Eileen]

So what is the clear and correct choice? Letting both die or aborting the child?

The clear correct choice is aborting the child so that one may live.

[CoHo]

Do I think that abortion is the wrong choice? NO! It's the RIGHT wrong thing to do.

Are you pro-choice then?

[Serotonin]

Reducing the complexities of abortion to pro-choice/pro-life is ridiculous.

"Choose, dammit!"

If at gunpoint, I'd say I'm a conservative pro-choicer.

[Eileen]

Are you pro-choice then?

I believe that abortion has to be a legal and safe option. So, yes.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

abortion is always wrong


The clear correct choice is aborting the child

Uh oh.

morality is subjective. "x is wrong" is wrong.

[CoHo]

Reducing the complexities of abortion to pro-choice/pro-life is ridiculous.

Yeah, I can agree, there is such an overly-defined gray area where depending on who you talk to the fetus is either a bunch of cells with no sentience or it's quoting Shakespeare.

[CosmicDust]

I think prevention is best, and if abortion is used, the earlier the better. I'm not sure I would do it, but I don't have that many qualms about killing a small embryo that has little in the way of human form, and certainly not a fertilized egg or undifferentiated cell clump the likes of which I heard are frequently spontaneously aborted/don't attach to the womb anyway. Use the spare frozen embryos from fertility clinics for stem cells - they are just clumps of cells, IMO. They don't care, and I don't either. Put major legal restrictions on abortions after the first 10 weeks or so if you want.

My little sister's ex once said that he'd choose abortion over adoption if faced with an unwanted baby, 'cause he was a foster child rescued from an irresponsible mom and abusive stepdad or pseudo-stepdad and had a nasty time of life as a semi-unwanted child.

[Eileen]

Uh oh.

There's a difference between morally right and logically right sometimes.

Edit: and by logically right, I mean "correct."

[CoHo]

There's a difference between morally right and logically right sometimes.

You mean what you feel is correct vs. what is best for society? I don't know if I'd toss the word logical in there.

[Eileen]

And once again, my subjective opinion is a result of religious belief and personal experience, both of which are either illogical or alogical, depending on who you ask, so clearly we're not on the same page.

[Star]

My little sister's ex once said that he'd choose abortion over adoption if faced with an unwanted baby, 'cause he was a foster child rescued from an irresponsible mom and abusive stepdad or pseudo-stepdad and had a nasty time of life as a semi-unwanted child.

I've come to the same conclusions, due to having been raised in an "every sperm is sacred" Catholic family, where children are many and wanted children are few.

[Eileen]

You mean what you feel is correct vs. what is best for society? I don't know if I'd toss the word logical in there.

Yeah, you might be right. You probably are.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

It doesn't matter if the argument involves morality, you still contradicted yourself.

[Eileen]

It doesn't matter if the argument involves morality, you still contradicted yourself.

Okay. I still think that it does matter, but I don't care enough, to be perfectly honest with you. I know what I think and I know why.

[Boneca]

It doesn't matter if the argument involves morality, you still contradicted yourself.Yet, I thought her reasoning was perfectly clear. Everything isn't strictly black and white.

[Serotonin]

It doesn't matter if the argument involves morality, you still contradicted yourself.

Eileen's bent over backwards to be fair and civil to you Sir Isaac.
I think she's more than justified her position. Feeling is feeling is feeling. This is how she operates. Saying that she contradicted herself, well maybe in a purely T sense, but not in an F sense. And that is what's important to her. The problem is that accusing her of being contradictory, she may interpret that as being contradictory in an F sense, like "going against what she is feeling". That would hurt. She probably smart enough to realise that you only mean "contradicting yourself in a T sense". But barbs like that can still hurt.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Yet, I thought her reasoning was perfectly clear. Everything isn't strictly black and white.

Hello McFly, that was my point.

I was responding to her statement "Abortion is always wrong", which is clearly a black and white statement applied to a subjective matter.

[Serotonin]

Both Bush and Kerry were "wrong" during the 2004 campaign. And no, there ain't no fringe parties you can vote for when you're pregnant.

[Eileen]

You just latched onto one of my statements, then, and didn't pay attention to the rest.

Morally, I think that abortion is wrong because it's the termination of a human life without that human's consent.

Practically, I don't think that my particular belief about the morality of abortion can or even should be enforced because there are times when a person has to choose between Wrong Option #1 (abortion, the termination of a human life without that human's consent) and Wrong Option #2 (the moral wrong of bringing a child into an abusive situation and/or an overpopulated world), and when it comes down to something like this, I sure as hell am not stepping up to the plate to make someone else's decision for them.

[Boneca]

I was responding to her statement "Abortion is always wrong", which is clearly a black and white statement applied to a subjective matter.But even I, as an atheist Thinker, still have no problem whatsoever to see that you can feel something is morally wrong, but still do it for other reasons. I don't understand why you can't.

[Eileen]

The other thing is that, whether I made it explicit or not, I meant that IN MY OPINION and TO ME, abortion is always a moral wrong. I recognize that there are people who don't perceive this in at all the same way (like you, Sir) and don't even feel that there's a moral dilemma. (Another reason why my particular moral belief should not be implemented as law.)

[Sir Isaac Lime]

The other thing is that, whether I made it explicit or not, I meant that IN MY OPINION and TO ME, abortion is always a moral wrong. I recognize that there are people who don't perceive this in at all the same way (like you, Sir) and don't even feel that there's a moral dilemma. (Another reason why my particular moral belief should not be implemented as law.)

STOP JUDGING ME!!

*bawls*

[Eileen]

STOP JUDGING ME!!

*bawls*

*patpat*

*sigh*

[songbird36]

This debate is heading for an early grave...

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

[Eileen]

This debate is heading for an early grave...

I'm the thread killer. I KILL THE THREAD!

[Eileen]

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

This particular statement is only correct if you're dealing with immature types who haven't developed beyond their dominant or auxilliary processes.

East is east, but I can venture west (though I will need to be met in some central location).

[flan2dave]

This debate is heading for an early grave...

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

You could say it was aborted...

:mellow: :laser:

[Serotonin]

You could say it was aborted...

:mellow: :laser:

Oh, that is despicable.

Muahahahahahahah I love it!

[Sir Isaac Lime]

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

All at best a guess and a guess at best

*skips away laughing maniacally*

[HeyBooU]

Do I think the decision of Roe v Wade was the right one? No, I beleive the majority opinion was wrong and dangerous(unenumerated rights scare me).

Do I think abortion is right or wrong? I'll get back to you on that one.

[mgb]

Do I think the decision of Roe v Wade was the right one? No, I beleive the majority opinion was wrong and dangerous(unenumerated rights scare me).

Do I think abortion is right or wrong? I'll get back to you on that one.

I have to wonder though, was Roe vs Wade done because it was the popular thing to do or the right thing to do?

I suppose I wonder why I should have a say in what someone else does with their body.

(who said this was dead)

[HeyBooU]

I beleive the supreme court would say the "right" thing. I don't think it had to much to do with being popular really.

[Ascending]

Snarled, your input gender made me laugh, thanks. That a reference from somewhere?

The supreme cort in my understanding is about upholding the prominent social values of the time so as a reference for decideding morals appeal to their authority is not generaly a stable one. Reference slavery & equal rights cases.

Although Jane Roe (Norma McCorvy) later claimed she was being manipulated by her lawyer (Weddington) and claims she ended up never having an abortion. McCorvy filed for an overturn of the case outcome and a judge has agreed to hear the case.




Someone says "life begins here" and places a marker.
You pick up the marker, move it back two feet, and then say "No, it's here"

It doesn't matter if your line is further back. If you don't provide reason for your choice, it is by definition arbitrary.

I believe the 'offical' argument is that to say the baby is a human life after birth, one trimester mature, or 2 trimesters mature would be drawing an arbitrary line. The only non-arbitrary line you could possibly draw is at conception where the being posseses the full genetic matieral to mature into a human.

Personaly I never understood the "My body, my choice" view. I always have a voice yelling in my head "It's not your body!" when I hear that.

It seems to me that abortion has become a socially accepted mechanism to dodge responsibility in most cases. Fitting in what I percive to be a general social trend for less and less self control.

Well Deepsky, nice being in the same camp while it lasted. :ph34r:

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I believe the 'offical' argument is that to say the baby is a human life after birth, one trimester mature, or 2 trimesters mature would be drawing an arbitrary line. The only non-arbitrary line you could possibly draw is at conception where the being posseses the full genetic matieral to mature into a human.


Yes, I get that "conception" is defined as the beginning, but it means nothing to say "life begins when it starts". It still does not clarifiy, just when exactly, a "valid life" has come into being (we can't kill a valid life afterall).

So what makes a life valid? Is it conciousness or a soul? It doesn't matter what you pick because we can't honestly define either one. Therefore, no line can be drawn upon to declare when this has formed.

Thus, arbitrary.

[Sackanaka]

It is my civil duty as a proud member of Assholes Anonymous to state that this question begs the question, that there is a "Right" or "Wrong".
I think some of you will agree and some won't,
but everyone will agree to my reply in some degree that

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/whocares3.jpg

[Bugeater]

Personaly I never understood the "My body, my choice" view. I always have a voice yelling in my head "It's not your body!" when I hear that.
It's an intruder! Kill it! It would be so much easier if your body could somehow ask you if you want to get pregnant...it could be like those electronic voting systems with the multiple confirmations. "Are you sure you want to get pregnant?" I'm sure someone out there is shouting, "Then don't have sex!" But seriously, who wants to go through life without sex? And contraception doesn't always work.

[misutii]

I think it's better to kill an embryo than to give birth to an unwanted child.

And perhaps it's just my biological "bias", but there is no way I can see how a lump of cells could be equal to a human being. Do you believe a fertilized egg cell has a soul? (I'm asking you, because I don't know what a soul is.)

word
anyone that thinks they have the right to enforce what another person can do to their body should be kicked in the balls (or beaten in the head) until they're inferior seed is removed from the genepool
there's no such thing as a soul, if there is it's irrelevent
the individual must have the right to choose
humans are animals, a fertilized egg is not even an animal - and we kill animals (that are not humans) all the time

edit: i'd also recommend all those anti-abortionist protesters to put their efforts into something more logical and meaningful... like maybe helping all those poor 'people' in africa...... oh wait i forgot a fetus is more important than you not buying that thing that supports the death of that african, whoops!
and yah i don't care about africa either, aren't i evil.

[songbird36]

Didn't you hear Mistsuii - this debate is dead!

There is no middle ground - only the pro's and anti's (who have both argued their respective positions until they were hoarse)..

[Helios]

I voted against abortion, both because it's murder and I think a Woman's ( or Man's ) Right to Choose is a load of crock.

Nonetheless, it doesn't bother me much, because a lot of worse things happen ( although I have no doubt it is excruciatingly painful for the baby ). I'd be a lot happier with the killers if they cheerfully said 'Yes, it is murder: but it many circumstances we believe murder's the way to go.'



Claverhouse :ph34r:



Yeah I feel exactly the same (and voted likewise), I mean if ya gonna kill it at 2mos, why not do a partial birth too, and fuck if ya are gonna do a partial birth, why not just get the thing all the way out and chop it up with a meat clever!

I mean the lil fucker can't really survive on it own for some time, so if we are gonna kill it one day why not the next. If murder is legal, so be it, but lets not dance around the issue,call it legalized maternal murder and be done with it; otherwise I don't really care.



edit-I care even less about Africa, well I think Pretoria's new name is dumb, but otherwise, nadda.

[Helios]

word
anyone that thinks they have the right to enforce what another person can do to their body should be kicked in the balls (or beaten in the head) until they're inferior seed is removed from the genepool
there's no such thing as a soul, if there is it's irrelevent
the individual must have the right to choose
humans are animals, a fertilized egg is not even an animal - and we kill animals (that are not humans) all the time

edit: i'd also recommend all those anti-abortionist protesters to put their efforts into something more logical and meaningful... like maybe helping all those poor 'people' in africa...... oh wait i forgot a fetus is more important than you not buying that thing that supports the death of that african, whoops!
and yah i don't care about africa either, aren't i evil.



you really need to stop being such a jaded,cynical, nihilist motherf*cker, 'cause if you don't I am really gonna start likeing you alot!

[Ascending]

Yes, I get that "conception" is defined as the beginning, but it means nothing to say "life begins when it starts". It still does not clarifiy, just when exactly, a "valid life" has come into being (we can't kill a valid life afterall).

So what makes a life valid? Is it conciousness or a soul? It doesn't matter what you pick because we can't honestly define either one. Therefore, no line can be drawn upon to declare when this has formed.

Thus, arbitrary. My point relys on the agreement that life starts somewhere between conception and lets just say one month of age. The only non-arbitrairy line that can be drawn is at conception.

I was wondering when this debate would happen. Took much longer then I expected.

[misutii]

you really need to stop being such a jaded,cynical, nihilist motherf*cker, 'cause if you don't I am really gonna start likeing you alot!

if i'm ever in your hood we're going to get retartedly high and party

[Dunearhp]

Why is everyone preocupied with drawing a line.

Virii, bacteria, krill, ants, spiders, worms, mice, rats, finches, possums, cats, tuna, dogs, octopi, seals, cattle, pigs, tigers, giraffes, dolphins, humans, elephants, whales. When is killing wrong? Draw me a line.

Every breath we take kills thousands of bacteria.

Do morals and ethics really require black and white definitions?

The intellectual capability of a foetus will progress through equivalence with many of the animals I listed. During that time it will be kept in what is in effect a partial sensory deprivation chamber.

Birth is presumably a traumatic event. Hands up if you remember being born.

I think the whole issue is a grey area. I think the mother should get to make the decision. She has to take the risks and stress of pregnancy.

In the case of rape, aborting early results in killing a foetus that has an insects capacity for suffering. Not allowing abortion would extend the violation of rape into a nine month ordeal. If my gender were reversed, I imagine that is how I would feel.

I think that the black and white moral boundaries that we often try to apply, are purely artificial constructs.
I agree with Eileen, not every situation presents you with a right choice.

[melancholeric]

Gee, I was gone like 6 hours and 117 replies appeared.

Apparently there was no disagreement of the legal issue. For pragmatic reasons, there should be a legal and safe option. The other option is coathangers and garage doctors.

The parasite view. The way I see it, if the embryo can't survive outside the womb, it is completely dependant of the mother. A parasite.

I've heard people argue against abortions on the basis that there's contraception available if you don't want to pregnant. No contraception method is 100 % effective. ( Otherwise I wouldn't be typing this... )

Killing animals doesn't compare. We kill pigs because we eat them. As species we naturally value our specimen more than pigs. ( Show me one animal that doesn't. ) An embryo, however, is not a human. A potential human maybe. But then is every sperm.... ( Every male is a mass murderer. )

Think of how most pregnancies end with spontaneus miscarriage before the mother even notices anything.

As for the Christian nutjobs, the OT has a few references to this. Causing a miscarriage is "wrong", but not a murder. The punishment is up to parents to decide. More specifically, up to the father. ( Don't have the time to chect the exact verses right now. ) Now if the nutjobs ever read their holy books life would be easier for all of us.

"I'm just like those aborted fetuses, Chuck. I wasn't born yesterday either." -Eric Cartman.

[MacGuffin]

[looks into thread, looks down at meager supply of popcorn]

Holy Crap!

[exits thread]

[booyalab]

I agree with Claverhouse and Helios. The "choice" argument is preposterous and inconsistent. Fine, do what you want, but just call it what it is.

[Geoff]

This thread is a classic example of definitive laws vs graduated changes.

The world and its legal system requires definitive rules. eg it is wrong to kill a human being and doing so is murder.

The definition of human being is not one that can easily be set down on a piece of paper as it is a graduated process.

It is therefore impossible to write a law that makes abortion an acceptable legal proposition unless each time you want to do an abortion you consult appropriate professionals to decide whether in that particular case it is a human life.

If the question is "when is human status reached", the answer is not answerable in the current legal system.

A similar problem is demonstrable in many of the current burning legal issues. Like Euthanasia - when is this murder? Clearly sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt, and somewhere in between it might be.

While we have laws that require black and white definitions, and the real world that doesnt deal in such definites these debates will run on and on.

Another example, statutory rape. One 17 year old (say) can be developmentally different to another, and some countries would call this rape even if consensual.

So I put the problem on the legal system being too inflexible to cope with a graduated issue.

-Geoff

[booyalab]

And I certainly agree with you nazis on not bringing a deformed ( tetragenic or otherwise ) life into the world; nor in cases of rape, because rape is a serious moral crime, and it would be awful for the child to know his or her father was so evil.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Mind you, I'm intrigued by the concept of a new life as an unwanted parasite. ]

Now that I think about it, Jews and fetuses have a lot in common.

Both are considered by many to be unwanted parasites. Neither are autonomous. Both have been/are unduly exterminated. Opinions differ on the 'unduly' part for both.

[HeyBooU]

The supreme cort in my understanding is about upholding the prominent social values of the time so as a reference for decideding morals appeal to their authority is not generaly a stable one. Reference slavery & equal rights cases.


Huh? I could have sworn the supreme court was about interpreting the constitution.


I really like the argument, "If a fetus is a human, then an acorn is an oak tree."

[Thermo]

I guess the father doesn't get a say at all according to the poll. :( I think I lean more pro-choice.

Pro:
Unwanted child - It takes two or three years to adopt. Someone will want the child.
No taking it back - Many women feel guilt and can't reverse the decision.
Religious Right - This pisses them off, which is always a good thing ;) Ironically, these are usually the same people that clamor for the death penalty.

I would definitely make an exception for rape.

[booyalab]

Huh? I could have sworn the supreme court was about interpreting the constitution.


I really like the argument, "If a fetus is a human, then an acorn is an oak tree."

I like the argument (that I just made up right now) "if the relationship between a fetus and a human is the same as the one between an acorn and an oak tree, then humans are plants."

[booyalab]

Religious Right - This pisses them off, which is always a good thing ;) Ironically, these are usually the same people that clamor for the death penalty.


Cliched, horrible comparison. There's this little phrase that goes -"innocent until proven guilty". (you could say that people declared guilty haven't been 'proven' so the declaration is invalid or whatever, but then..what's the point of having a legal system at all? The logical alternative would be anarchy. (not saying you will give this excuse, i'm just anticipating it in case you do))

[Lee]

Abortion happens, abortion always will happen, if you somehow manage to enforce a law against it there will be people fighting against it. Abortion is a throwback to our evolutionary past when mothers had to weigh up the costs and benefits to raising a child and choose appropriatley. The ethics are largely irrelavent from my perspective (the lines are blurred), some people will be pro abortion, others against abortion , i'll leave them to battle it out from thier entirely self-serving positions.

[crule81]

If the question is "when is human status reached", the answer is not answerable in the current legal system.



Which is why there should be a presumption of life just as there is a presumption of innocence which must be rebutted with proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus at a certain degree of development is "not alive", then abortion should be illegal.

(I haven't read the whole thread so hopefully no one has made this argument already.)

[booyalab]

thier entirely self-serving positions.

HUH? Most people will never directly experience the existentialist dilemma that comes with choosing whether to have an abortion. Probably 95% of abortion protestors/advocates could be doing A LOT more self-serving things with their time.

[Lee]

HUH? Most people will never directly experience the existentialist dilemma that comes with choosing whether to have an abortion. Probably 95% of abortion protestors/advocates could be doing A LOT more self-serving things with their time.

I meant indirectly, however behind the cause they think they are, thier real reasons for thier views lie in thier own psychological needs and wants.

[HeyBooU]

I like the argument (that I just made up right now) "if the relationship between a fetus and a human is the same as the one between an acorn and an oak tree, then humans are plants."
I can buy that :D.

[booyalab]

I just changed my gender description in honor of this thread. teehee

[Star]

Well Deepsky, nice being in the same camp while it lasted. :ph34r:

How judgmental of you. ;)

How come Boneca and Bug get to have the same opinion as me, but I hafta be the bitch. =/

I didn't really say what my view on the situation was at all, heh. But it's pretty much exactly what they said. Imagine this: a thinking female with a preference for open-endedness. Motherhood is -forever- with a capital F ... as in Feeling. I don't think that any of us should be forced to serve that life sentence as punishment for a moment's carelessness (or violence).

Without even getting into "when life begins" and all that nonsense I'll just say that if it is murder, then so be it; but it is an act of self-defense on the woman's part.

[Thermo]

Cliched, horrible comparison. There's this little phrase that goes -"innocent until proven guilty".

It doesn't have to do with guilt or innocence. If the Religious Right is so concerned about perserved life at birth, why doesn't a convict's life have the same worth?

[Geoff]

It doesn't have to do with guilt or innocence. If the Religious Right is so concerned about perserved life at birth, why doesn't a convict's life have the same worth?

Yep, or Muslim's.

-Geoff

[Star]

It doesn't have to do with guilt or innocence. If the Religious Right is so concerned about perserved life at birth, why doesn't a convict's life have the same worth?

I know you're not asking me but I'm butting in anyway: family values, don't you know. It's their goal to keep the woman tied to the family. It's not life they're concerned with, it's the social order, though few of them are willing to recognize this.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I have no real stance on this subject, but I find that no one on either side can answer the question: "When and how is a life considered valid".

Abortion is murder
Abortion is a mothers choice
Abortion is wrong

All of these sound silly to me.

[booyalab]

It doesn't have to do with guilt or innocence. If the Religious Right is so concerned about perserved life at birth, why doesn't a convict's life have the same worth?

It has everything to do with guilt or innocence. That is justice. Some people value it more than life. It is irrelevant in a pregnancy because the fetus hasn't allegedly committed a crime.

[booyalab]

I know you're not asking me but I'm butting in anyway: family values, don't you know. It's their goal to keep the woman tied to the family. It's not life they're concerned with, it's the social order, though few of them are willing to recognize this.

blatant assumption

[Star]

blatant assumption

Nope, observation.

[booyalab]

You can't "observe" a motivation.

pro-life person1:
motivation- ending mass murder of fetuses
behavior- handing out pamphlets outside an abortion clinic, arguing pro-life stance

pro-life person2:
motivation- preserving social order
behavior-handing out pamphlets outside an abortion clinic, arguing pro-life stance

[Star]

You can't "observe" a motivation.

pro-life person1:
motivation- ending mass murder of fetuses
behavior- handing out pamphlets outside an abortion clinic, arguing pro-life stance

pro-life person2:
motivation- preserving social order
behavior-handing out pamphlets outside an abortion clinic, arguing pro-life stance

I'm talking about the institutions that promote anti-choice sentiment and activism, not individuals. Very few of the individuals come to their own conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of it, and instead follow a position set out for them, by church, political party, etc.

[misutii]

really, pro-lifers' arguments just keep getting more stupid and more stupid... and i like how none of them could reply to my 'what about the africans? post' cause their standpoint is so flawed and inconsistent, thinking they have more of a right to define what is a human being? it doesn't matter what a human being is but rather what a conscious human being is. if you're so intent on saving lives then go do something right now because thousands are dying and stop being hypocritical.
see? obviously you don't care so why should a woman?
oops, i just indirectly helped 'murder' a thousand people by ignoring their needs, instead posting on this thread... do i care? no and and neither do you

the reason pro-lifers are against abortion is the same that in our culture it is like a crime to murder a dog but not a pig.

furthermore forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want is unproductive to society, the woman is not financially prepared, the child therefore is not well taken care of... and if put into an orphan home this is made even worse. and i still don't see how a fertilized egg is really any different then the sperm, or egg beforehand that we constantly waste. i think every person on this thread should go make a genocide of their potential children right now

judeao-christian peasants

[booyalab]

I'm talking about the institutions that promote anti-choice sentiment and activism, not individuals. Very few of the individuals come to their own conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of it, and instead follow a position set out for them, by church, political party, etc.

I dont see how you came to either of those conclusions so all encompassingly. Just because someone belongs to an institution, doesn't mean they are a tool of it. Hell, even if someone believes what they do "because the church told me to ", it's still derived from an individually determined value that whatever the church says is good and right.
But, even if in spite of all that you want to believe they're all tools..for consistency's sake you have to apply that assertion to those with your views. Compositionally, the parties are the same, and secularism is often as religiously adhered to as christianity.

[booyalab]

really, pro-lifers' arguments just keep getting more stupid and more stupid... and i like how none of them could reply to my 'what about the africans? post' cause their standpoint is so flawed and inconsistent, thinking they have more of a right to define what is a human being? it doesn't matter what a human being is but rather what a conscious human being is. if you're so intent on saving lives then go do something right now because thousands are dying and stop being hypocritical.
see? obviously you don't care so why should a woman?
oops, i just indirectly helped 'murder' a thousand people by ignoring their needs, instead posting on this thread... do i care? no and and neither do you

the reason pro-lifers are against abortion is the same that in our culture it is like a crime to murder a dog but not a pig.

furthermore forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want is unproductive to society, the woman is not financially prepared, the child therefore is not well taken care of... and if put into an orphan home this is made even worse. and i still don't see how a fertilized egg is really any different then the sperm, or egg beforehand that we constantly waste. i think every person on this thread should go make a genocide of their potential children right now

judeao-christian peasants

You make some good points about the priorities we make with other people's lives, but you come across so bitter that your point is almost completely lost in the tone.
It's true that people dont go out of their way to help people that are dying in Africa. There are lots of reasons people give: African governments steal all aid, I cant save EVERYONE, it's their own fault for contracting AIDs...but the fact remains that it's easy to ignore someone's plight when you can't see them, and we're selfish. However, you seem to have taken the hypocrisy of this and concluded that the moral reprehensibility of each issue somehow makes it all cancel out and so then it's ok to be pro-choice. That's illogical.
The last paragraph gives a practical reason for why it's ok to kill a fetus, but just because something is practical doesn't make it right...and this issue is ultimately about right vs wrong.

[mgb]

I dont see how you came to either of those conclusions so all encompassingly. Just because someone belongs to an institution, doesn't mean they are a tool of it. Hell, even if someone believes what they do "because the church told me to ", it's still derived from an individually determined value that whatever the church says is good and right.
But, even if in spite of all that you want to believe they're all tools..for consistency's sake you have to apply that assertion to those with your views. Compositionally, the parties are the same, and secularism is often as religiously adhered to as christianity.

That's a rather idealized position on "people".

[Thermo]

Yep, or Muslim's.

I am not sure if this was meant as a crack to my position on Guantanimo or not. I don't have a problem with them being locked up forever, but I don't think they should be executed though so I consider them separate issues.




I know you're not asking me but I'm butting in anyway: family values, don't you know. It's their goal to keep the woman tied to the family. It's not life they're concerned with, it's the social order, though few of them are willing to recognize this.

You could also point out that most anti-abortionists are men, at least according to some propoganda I read. I think I respect the right of the woman to chose, but I don't think men should be completely left of the decision, especially if they want to be involved.




It has everything to do with guilt or innocence. That is justice. Some people value it more than life. It is irrelevant in a pregnancy because the fetus hasn't allegedly committed a crime.

I will think about this. I don't have the time it deserves to respond today.

[C.J.Woolf]

I just changed my gender description in honor of this thread. teehee
"Fetus farmer"

vs.

"Parasite host"

[booyalab]

That's a rather idealized position on "people".

There is a progression of values that leads one to choose a side of a debate like the abortion issue. It is NEVER traced to a computer program in your mind.
It's possible , I guess, that the ultimate value or philosophy one has is just a result of an assortment of outside factors. But you'd have to assume that's the case for everyone, if you assume it's the case for anyone. In order to be consistent and un-arrogant and unbiased as possible. (because like I told deepsky, that sort of opinion about someone's motivation is an assumption)

So either no one's a tool or everyone's a tool. I should quote "Hooker with a Penis" lyrics now.

[booyalab]

"Fetus farmer"

vs.

"Parasite host"

that second one's good too...but the fetus farmer matches well with my nazi wench avatar

[mgb]

There is a progression of values that leads one to choose a side of a debate like the abortion issue. It is NEVER traced to a computer program in your mind.
It's possible , I guess, that the ultimate value or philosophy one has is just a result of an assortment of outside factors. But you'd have to assume that's the case for everyone, if you assume it's the case for anyone. In order to be consistent and un-arrogant and unbiased as possible. (because like I told deepsky, that sort of opinion about someone's motivation is an assumption)

So either no one's a tool or everyone's a tool. I should quote "Hooker with a Penis" lyrics now.

This could easily turn into a discussion on free will. I suppose someone does.

[mgb]

Abortion happens, abortion always will happen, if you somehow manage to enforce a law against it there will be people fighting against it. Abortion is a throwback to our evolutionary past when mothers had to weigh up the costs and benefits to raising a child and choose appropriatley. The ethics are largely irrelavent from my perspective (the lines are blurred), some people will be pro abortion, others against abortion , i'll leave them to battle it out from thier entirely self-serving positions.

Actually, this is how abortion was legalized in the first place wasn't it. And is a very good point from a public health perspective.

[booyalab]

This could easily turn into a discussion on free will. I suppose someone does.

yup, oh and "Hooker with a Penis"-TOOL

(substitute "record" with "political statement")
(substitute "bought one" with "voted")
(middle paragraph- if I wasn't lazy I'd try to think of political substitutions for key words in that too....you guys are smart enough, do it yourself)
(substitute "buy my new record" with "vote for__")

_________________________________
I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip shit,
And you bought one.


All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on tv
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty
Dollar

So...shut up and

Buy my new record
Send more money
Fuck you, buddy.

[Geoff]

I am not sure if this was meant as a crack to my position on Guantanimo or not. I don't have a problem with them being locked up forever, but I don't think they should be executed though so I consider them separate issues.




Not in the slightest - it wasnt a comment on your stance on anything. I was just pointing out that religious types who are pro life dont always have the same view of non christians (eg muslims).

-Geoff

[Thermo]

Not in the slightest - it wasnt a comment on your stance on anything. I was just pointing out that religious types who are pro life dont always have the same view of non christians (eg muslims).

I would agree.

[Ascending]

The supreme cort in my understanding is about upholding the prominent social values of the time so as a reference for decideding morals appeal to their authority is not generaly a stable one. Reference slavery & equal rights cases.

Perhaps it was distracting to say supreme cort, I should have said laws of the land. The supreme cort's job is to uphold the consititution in a sense, that is according to the value based interpretation of the time. Susan B. Anthony anyone?

[mgb]

Actually, Geoff, interesting point.

My g/f spent 3 years in Japan working at a Junior High. While she was there, quite a few girls ended up having abortions. They see it as an acceptable form of birth control. They also have much different views on sex and infidelity there.

[Thermo]

supreme cort

The spelling nazis are going to have a field day with this.

[Sam172]

I'm predominantly anti-abortion, however I do make certain exceptions...such as when it's dangerous to give birth, or if it's rape.

Then again, I'm not female...so I will never have to give birth to children (at least...I hope I won't have to ¬_¬). So I can't say that women should give birth to children they don't want to.


Then there's the whole problem of the child possibly being neglected by the mother their whole life. So there should be nice organisations for that (I mean proper nice....).....so I'm on the fence again.


So I suppose I'm undecided in the end.

Still think killing is wrong though...

[Bugeater]

Then again, I'm not female...so I will never have to give birth to children (at least...I hope I won't have to ¬_¬). So I can't say that women should give birth to children they don't want to.
Try and think of it this way. Suppose you got a woman pregnant (whether or not either of you used contraception)...and she decided she wanted to have the baby, while you definitely didn't want her to have the baby. Nine months down the road, she has the baby and you still want nothing to do with it, but then she sues your ass for child support. So, you're stuck paying for that one moment of passion/lust (or whatever you want to call it) for the next 18 years. Now, I'm not against dead-beat dads having to pay child support if they actually wanted that child, but I think it's ridiculous for a father who never wanted that child to have to pay. They should have the right to cut all ties before the birth, as well. Sort of like an abortion of financial/emotional obligation.

[Claverhouse]

Imagine this: a thinking female with a preference for open-endedness. Motherhood is -forever- with a capital F ... as in Feeling. I don't think that any of us should be forced to serve that life sentence as punishment for a moment's carelessness (or violence).
'A child is a parasite.'

'Motherhood is a life-sentence.'


Don't have a kid, is my advice. They won't thank you for it, the ungrateful little parasites.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Swift]

1. Abortion is wrong, because it is wrong to kill helpless human beings. Life (which starts at the moment of conception) should be protected, not ripped away from the womb, and especially not by the person the foetus depends most on for survival, it's mother.

2. The methods of abortion are perverse. Embry's and foetuses are being ripped apart, poisoned, burned with chemical solutions or sucked to pieces without any form of narcose or painkilling.

http://readthetruth.com/abortion-methods.htm
http://www.precious-life.com/abortion_methods.htm
http://www.precious-life.com/ugly_truth.htm

Take some time and get yourself acquainted with methods like "salt poisening" or "Dilatation & Evacuation".


Dilatation & Evacuation
Performed during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy. This method has largely replaced saline and chemical abortions, which too frequently resulted in live births, a complication from the abortionist's perspective! A pliers-like instrument is needed because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse's job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.
3. Abortion is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to take responsabilty for their actions (even taking anticonception appears to be asked too much).

4. Rape is not an argument. A foetus should not pay for the crime of somebody else. Besides, this will only open the door for false accusations of rape.

5. The proper method to avoid unwanted children is birth-control, not abortion. How many unwanted children do you know that regret not being aborted? (Should people be allowed to sue their parents for not being aborted?)

6. The "right for abortion" was not a female idea, it comes from men that want women to always be sexually available, without having to think about anticonception or the risk of having to raise/pay for a kid.
http://www.secessie.nu/?tekst=toonhtml&artikel=900-20

7. Legalized abortion is a threat to the demografic of the Western Society's and a threat to the development of the Third World country's (eg shortage of women in China and India).

8. Abortion is a multimillion industry. Not only do women pay for the abortion itself, the fat from the foetuses is removed and sold to cosmetic company's.

9. Claiming abortion should be legalized because people would do it in the back yard in insafe conditions doesn't hold true either. There have been cases of women dying during legal abortions, not to mention non-lethal effects like permanent infertility.

Swift

[Swift]

Now, I'm not against dead-beat dads having to pay child support if they actually wanted that child, but I think it's ridiculous for a father who never wanted that child to have to pay. They should have the right to cut all ties before the birth, as well. Sort of like an abortion of financial/emotional obligation. Take some fucking responsability in your life.

Suppose I hit somebody with my car. I never wanted that either. Would you turn around and hit the poor sucker again to make sure he's dead just to excape your responsibility to deal with the consequences of your actions?

Swift

[melancholeric]

1. Abortion is wrong, because it is wrong to kill helpless human beings. Life (which starts at the moment of conception) should be protected, not ripped away from the womb, and especially not by the person the foetus depends most on for survival, it's mother.
Your opinion. The womans opinion is equally valid. Actually, more valid. You're not getting pregnant any time soon, are you?

And why at conception exactly?

2. The methods of abortion are perverse. Embry's and foetuses are being ripped apart, poisoned, burned with chemical solutions or sucked to pieces without any form of narcose or painkilling.
http://readthetruth.com/abortion-methods.htm
http://www.precious-life.com/abortion_methods.htm
http://www.precious-life.com/ugly_truth.htm
Take some time and get yourself acquainted with methods like "salt poisening" or "Dilatation & Evacuation".

If the fetus is undeveloped enough to not feel any pain, this is completely irrelevant. Most abortions happen at relatively early stages ( first trimester ), when the operation is quite simple. Atleast at this corner of the world. Don't know what they say at "precious-life.com". Sounds like the most objective site you could find...


3. Abortion is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to take responsabilty for their actions (even taking anticonception is too much asked).
Not a single contraception method is 100 % reliable. After all, I am typing this. Much to your annoyance.

4. Rape is not an argument. A foetus should not pay for the crime of somebody else. Besides, this will only open the door for false accusations of rape.
The mother, however, has to pay. She hasn't suffered enough I assume?

5. The proper method to avoid unwanted children is birth-control, not abortion. How many unwanted children do you know that regret not being aborted? (Should people be allowed to sue their parents for not being aborted?)
How many people are using it as a birth control method? It is traumatic to the woman, and she probably knows it ( better than you ). It's not like taking a pill.

6. The "right for abortion" was not a female idea, it comes from men that want women to always be sexually available, without having to think about anticonception or the risk of having to raise/pay for a kid.
http://www.secessie.nu/?tekst=toonhtml&artikel=900-20
Women have been "sexually available" since the invention of the pill. Abortion is not a birth control method. Also, the woman has more of a risk of having to raise the child than the man.

7. Legalized abortion is a threat to the demografic of the Western Society's and a threat to the development of the Third World country's (eg shortage of women in China and India).
Oh, I get it. Declining population is because women are lining up to abortion clinics...

8. Abortion is a multimillion industry. Not only do women pay for the abortion itself, the fat from the foetuses is removed and sold to cosmetic company's.
Recycling.

9. Claiming abortion should be legalized because people would do it in the back yard in insafe conditions doesn't hold true either. There have been cases of women dying during legal abortions, not to mention non-lethal effects like permanent infertility.
Legal abortions are much safer than backyard abortions. Name one medical operation with no death cases. Just one.

[Lee]

1. Abortion is wrong, because it is wrong to kill helpless human beings. Life (which starts at the moment of conception) should be protected, not ripped away from the womb, and especially not by the person the foetus depends most on for survival, it's mother.
Some of this is speculative and most of it is totally subjective.


2. The methods of abortion are perverse. Embry's and foetuses are being ripped apart, poisoned, burned with chemical solutions or sucked to pieces without any form of narcose or painkilling.
Take some time and get yourself acquainted with methods like "salt poisening" or "Dilatation & Evacuation".
You presume people care and those that do must not care enough, they know it's an ugly business and they would probably voluntarily be left in the dark about it. Not to mention the fact that you are only killing something that may well not even know it existes.


3. Abortion is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to take responsabilty for their actions (even taking anticonception is too much asked).
Or...it can help fix an error of judgement, we do not always take responsibilty for our actions... if you were about to be knocked over by a bus I would not say "well, he shouldn't have walked out in the road".

Maybe they are taking responsibility by rectifying a mistake even though they may suffer great emotional trauma over it.


4. Rape is not an argument. A foetus should not pay for the crime of somebody else. Besides, this will only open the door for false accusations of rape.
Why does a foetus automatically have rights over the mother or the mothers other children who may be in a poor situation to begin with.


5. The proper method to avoid unwanted children is birth-control, not abortion. How many unwanted children do you know that regret not being aborted? (Should people be allowed to sue their parents for not being aborted?)
Agreed, people should use contraception, but this is not a perfect world and it is full of idiots waiting to screw up. A child that is never born never cares....it's a mute point.

And no, children should not be able to sue thier perants for not being aborted, how does this automatically come with abortion, it is a legal matter.


6. The "right for abortion" was not a female idea, it comes from men that want women to always be sexually available, without having to think about anticonception or the risk of having to raise/pay for a kid.
Teust me, abortion has been going on for as long as humans have roamed the earth. Abortion is common practice amongst hunter gathering groups that we evolved for, worse than that these groups often leave it until the baby is born naturally before leaving it to day, abortion is almost humane in comparison. THe decision to abort or kill a child comes from a cost/benifit ratio that is a result of natural selection, under some circumstances another child can be counter-productive.


7. Legalized abortion is a threat to the demografic of the Western Society's and a threat to the development of the Third World country's (eg shortage of women in China and India).
Agreed.


8. Abortion is a multimillion industry. Not only do women pay for the abortion itself, the fat from the foetuses is removed and sold to cosmetic company's.
Well at least they are put to something useful.


9. Claiming abortion should be legalized because people would do it in the back yard in insafe conditions doesn't hold true either. There have been cases of women dying during legal abortions, not to mention non-lethal effects like permanent infertility.
People will do it regerdless of what methods they have available, lagal and safe or otherwise... death is a risk that is run, just like everytime you get in your car.


Disclaimer: I do not necassarily believe this, I just like to play devils advocate.

[Bugeater]

If a father has no legal rights before a woman has his unwanted child, why should he have legal responsibilities to that unwanted child after it's born? A mother has the legal right to an abortion before birth, and can sever all legal obligations by aborting an unwanted child...why shouldn't a father have the same right to sever all legal obligations, too?

[ohnoaninfp]

I believe that a life begins at the point of conception.

People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.

If you have no qualms about killing someone for a particular reason go right ahead...

Silent Scream by Slayer...great song.

I agree. I would rather kill the guy who got me pregnant ;) , not someone who is inncocent. There are so many forms of birthcontrol out there, even though I don't believe in using birthcontrol, but I don't go out and get laid either. A woman should know the risk of getting pregnant, even if she is using BC. Sometimes the condems break or what not, but still why end an innocent life that was a result of an act. By the way, who is for the death penalty?

[Swift]

Your opinion. The womans opinion is equally valid. Actually, more valid. You're not getting pregnant any time soon, are you? Do you mean I can't have an opinion because I can't get pregnant? Well, I have been in a womb too, so I can have an opinion about birth or abortion just like everybody else.
So, why is the opinion of women more valid? It's about LIFE, not about fashion or colored toenails or something.


If the fetus is undeveloped enough to not feel any pain, this is completely irrelevant. Most abortions happen at relatively early stages ( first trimester ), when the operation is quite simple. At least at this corner of the world. Don't know what they say at "precious-life.com". Sounds like the most objective site you could find... It's about the principle of not killing human life. Is it ok if I drug you so you won't feel any pain and then kill you? And sorry if I didn't find a site that says that foetuses are happy to be aborted. (By the way, the information presented is quite objective, but maybe not pro-choice enough?)


Not a single contraception method is 100 % reliable. After all, I am typing this. Much to your annoyance. People should be taught responsability instead of choosing for the easy way out (= killing baby's).


The mother, however, has to pay. She hasn't suffered enough I assume? And that justifies killing?


How many people are using it as a birth control method? It is traumatic to the woman, and she probably knows it ( better than you ). It's not like taking a pill. Yeah, I know nothing because I'm not a women.


Oh, I get it. Declining population is because women are lining up to abortion clinics... It's a fact that in the last 30 years, 42 mmillion Americans have been aborted.


Recycling. You're sick. This borders on cannibalism.

Swift

[Swift]

If a father has no legal rights before a woman has his unwanted child, why should he have legal responsibilities to that unwanted child after it's born? A mother has the legal right to an abortion before birth, and can sever all legal obligations by aborting an unwanted child...why shouldn't a father have the same right to sever all legal obligations, too?I say give a father legal rights over unborn children. No, better yet, abolish abortion.

Swift

[Bugeater]

No, better yet, abolish abortion.
Never gonna happen.

[melancholeric]

Do you mean I can't have an opinion because I can't get pregnant? Well, I have been in a womb too, so I can have an opinion about birth or abortion just like everybody else.
So, why is the opinion of women more valid? It's about LIFE, not about fashion or colored toenails or something.
Sure you can have an opinion. But don't force it down on others' throats. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Also, whether it's a "human" is up to opinion. You didn't say why life begins at the point of conception, instead of, say, birth or sperm and egg production or at certain point of pregnancy. These are opinions too.



It's about the principle of not killing human life. Is it ok if I drug you so you won't feel any pain and then kill you? And sorry if I didn't find a site that says that foetuses are happy to be aborted. (By the way, the information presented is quite objective, but maybe not pro-choice enough?)
Whether it's a human life or not is matter of opinion.

People should be taught responsability instead of choosing for the easy way out (= killing baby's).
Don't fucking tell me it's easy. Unless if you've done it, and it was easy for you. ( Something I'd consider sick. )

And that justifies killing?
Whether it's a human life or not is matter of opinion. Thus, whether it's "killing" or not is a matter of opinion.

Yeah, I know nothing because I'm not a women.
I did not say that you don't know anything. I said that a woman probably knows it better. Didn't they teach you to read at school?

It's a fact that in the last 30 years, 42 mmillion Americans have been aborted.
How many have been born? Also, how many of those would have been aborted anyway, even if it was illegal? And how many more mothers would have died/lost fertility with backyard abortions?

You're sick. This borders on cannibalism.
Look. The woman has to pay on abortions. Would you rather have it done with tax funds? ( I would. ) When it's dead, it doesn't care what happens to it's cells, does it?

I don't like abortions either. Just that it should be available, if for nothing else but pragmatic reasons.

[Swift]

You presume people care and those that do must not care enough, they know it's an ugly business and they would probably voluntarily be left in the dark about it. Not to mention the fact that you are only killing something that may well not even know it existes. I presume people are ignorant about the butchery that goes on in abortion clinics. Even animal in the slaughterhouse are sedated before getting killed. And is killing a human being right because it has not yet developped a self-conscience? You claim


Or...it can help fix an error of judgement, we do not always take responsibilty for our actions... if you were about to be knocked over by a bus I would not say "well, he shouldn't have walked out in the road".Not taking responsibility for the result of your actions should not be the standard policy.


Maybe they are taking responsibility by rectifying a mistake even though they may suffer great emotional trauma over it.They are choosing the biggest of two evils.


Why does a foetus automatically have rights over the mother or the mothers other children who may be in a poor situation to begin with.Everybody has the right to live, even the unborn. And a poor family situation is no excuse. Why not kill one of the other kids instead?


Trust me, abortion has been going on for as long as humans have roamed the earth. Abortion is common practice amongst hunter gathering groups that we evolved for, worse than that these groups often leave it until the baby is born naturally before leaving it to day, abortion is almost humane in comparison. THe decision to abort or kill a child comes from a cost/benifit ratio that is a result of natural selection, under some circumstances another child can be counter-productive. We're not apes anymore, ok? We can make better choices than that. Why not kill everybody with some (perceived) defect?

Swift

[mgb]

I presume people are ignorant about the butchery that goes on in abortion clinics. Even animal in the slaughterhouse are sedated before getting killed. And is killing a human being right because it has not yet developped a self-conscience? You claim



Sedated with a nail.

Sorry, that's wrong, at least here.


And I don't remember my fetus days. Maybe I am weird that way.

[ohnoaninfp]

If a father has no legal rights before a woman has his unwanted child, why should he have legal responsibilities to that unwanted child after it's born? A mother has the legal right to an abortion before birth, and can sever all legal obligations by aborting an unwanted child...why shouldn't a father have the same right to sever all legal obligations, too?

Is he carrying the child? Besides He knew the risks and so did she. They will now have to take respondsibilty and take care of the child or give him/her up for adoption.

[mgb]

Is he carrying the child? Besides He knew the risks and so did she. They will now have to take respondsibilty and take care of the child or give him/her up for adoption.

From a strictly legal perspective...I'm not sure you can weigh risk vs. responsibility that easily.

There is no guarantee that every time you have sex you will have a child. In fact, I'd say it's much more rare to have sex and actually produce a child. So, you could argue instead that you have an expectation that during intercourse the woman won't get pregnant.

You really can't talk about responsibility until a child has been produced (you people can figure out that line). At that point the couple should decide what to do from a responsibility perspective.

[Dman]

I'd respond with an alogical statement, but this thread is still in its "fetus" stage.

lol


Originally Posted by snarled
People try to justify abortion by drawing an arbitrary line across a continuous process.

Originally Posted by snarled
I believe that a life begins at the point of conception
.

lol


Whoever said a fetus is just a cluster of cells is wrong. It is a cluster of cells with its own independent life and genetic blueprint, independent from its host (the mother).

The microorganism you just swallowed was also a cluster of cells with its own independent life and genetic blueprint…so was the dandelion you pulled up out of your garden…so were you wrong to murder those things?

(patiently waits for the “potential of human life” counter-argument)


Social services need to do a better job then. I would be quite comfortable adopting a child of a different race (personally).

So why are there so many orphanages around the world with so many babies, many with birth defects due to the mother abusing her body while pregnant for lack of wanting the baby, that no one will adopt? There may be a lot of people out there who “claim” to want these unwanted babies, but there sure seems to be an awwwwful lot of them that no one is claiming…

Why * haven’t * you adopted a baby of a different race?

[Swift]

Sure you can have an opinion. But don't force it down on others' throats. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Sure I'm going to force it down others' throats. We're talking about murder here, only most people are not aware of that. They're still thinking in terms of their own comfort, or they think they're just aborting "a lump of cells". Who the fuck is so sick that he wants to kill his own children, even when unborn?


Also, whether it's a "human" is up to opinion. You didn't say why life begins at the point of conception, instead of, say, birth or sperm and egg production or at certain point of pregnancy. These are opinions too.A fertilized cell divides and multiplies. Sperm and eggs do not, they don't even contain 46 chromosomes. From the moment 1 spermcell and 1 egg melt, we are talking about a human being. Besides, abortion is only an issue if there has been a conception, right? Nobody talks about aborting sperm or aborting eggs. If an embryo younger than 12 weeks is not human life, then why abort it?


Whether it's a human life or not is matter of opinion.A matter of opinion? That's just a very conveniant way to kill any discussion. Is a foetus human life? Is a Jew human life? Is a negro human life? No? Okay, let's kill them!


Didn't they teach you to read at school?Don't you have some common sense?


How many have been born? Also, how many of those would have been aborted anyway, even if it was illegal? And how many more mothers would have died/lost fertility with backyard abortions?Sorry, but legalized abortion just opened the door for mass murder. Don't tell me the number of abortions didn't increase dramatically after the legalisation of abortion. Oh, and dying or losing your fertility is the price you pay for killing somebody else.


When it's dead, it doesn't care what happens to it's cells, does it?Yeah let's bake the embryo's and make breakfast cereals.


I don't like abortions either. Just that it should be available, if for nothing else but pragmatic reasons. Why don't you like abortions? Do you think it is wrong, but perceive it as a necessary evil?

Swift

[Bugeater]

From a strictly legal perspective...I'm not sure you can weigh risk vs. responsibility that easily.

There is no guarantee that every time you have sex you will have a child. In fact, I'd say it's much more rare to have sex and actually produce a child. So, you could argue instead that you have an expectation that during intercourse the woman won't get pregnant.

You really can't talk about responsibility until a child has been produced (you people can figure out that line). At that point the couple should decide what to do from a responsibility perspective.
Agreed. Taking a risk doesn't necessarily mean you consent to the consequences. For instance, a person who ventures into a dark alley at night risks being assaulted, but that doesn’t imply consent to the assault, if it happens. The same with a woman who risks pregnancy by having sex.

[MacGuffin]

Is a fetus life as defined by biologists? Yes.

What species is a fetus? Human.

Is a fetus therefore human life? Yes.

Does that fetus therefore deserve the same rights and protection under the law as adult human life? ..............:blink:

[Swift]

Does that fetus therefore deserve the same rights and protection under the law as adult human life? ..............:blink:I say yes.

[CoHo]

Do you really consider a morning after pill murder?

[mgb]

A fertilized cell divides and multiplies. Sperm and eggs do not, they don't even contain 46 chromosomes. From the moment 1 spermcell and 1 egg melt, we are talking about a human being. Besides, abortion is only an issue if there has been a conception, right? Nobody talks about aborting sperm or aborting eggs. If an embryo younger than 12 weeks is not human life, then why abort it?



Uhh, I'd watch that. You just made a case for people with downs syndrome not being human. And with regards to abortion, legal to abort. They often have 47 chromosomes.

I imagine the same argument can be used for a multitude of genetic diseases.

[mgb]

Is a fetus life as defined by biologists? Yes.

What species is a fetus? Human.

Is a fetus therefore human life? Yes.

Does that fetus therefore deserve the same rights and protection under the law as adult human life? ..............:blink:

ahh, but as life...it should be able to function on it's own with no assistance. If it is removed and can't survive on it's own can you really blame the mother or our genetic inferiority to reptiles, birds and marsupials.

[Dman]

Everybody has the right to live, even the unborn.
Swift

I watched a documentary a while back, something about the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. I think it was called “Chernobyl Heart”.

The disfigured babies and kids in the orphanages over there are some of the most disturbing images I think anyone could see. These children absolutely should have been aborted asap. Their lives are a living hell, and many of them never even make it past a couple of years – if that. Some of them don't even resemble human beings. Obviously no one wants them, because they either don’t have the means to take care of them or they know they will die shortly anyways. Even one of the caretakers in the orphanage, whom you would think should be fairly callous to it by now after dealing with them day after day, broke down in tears while being interviewed.

Would it have been wrong to abort them? Is it better that they were born into horrible pain and suffering, only to die a few weeks or months later, with no chance of relief or cure? After all, they have the right to live.

[Lee]

Swift, what do you consider it is that makes us human? what seperates us from animals and single celled organisms?

[Swift]

Uhh, I'd watch that. You just made a case for people with downs syndrome not being human. And with regards to abortion, legal to abort. They often have 47 chromosomes.

I imagine the same argument can be used for a multitude of genetic diseases. I was discussing the difference between spermcells/eggs and a fertilized cell that divides and multiplies. Cells of people with downs syndrome do that too, don't they? So were did I write that it should be legal to abort people with downs syndrome? Didn't you get that I'm against abortion?

Swift

[Swift]

Swift, what do you consider it is that makes us human? what seperates us from animals and single celled organisms? One can say it is (self-)conscience that separates us from animals, but then, people will argue that foetuses are not conscious of themselves yet.

One can also point out the genetic differences between humans and animals, but then somebody else will point out the existence of people with downs syndrome and people with multiple X or Y chromosomes, etc...

I could probably point out several other arguments, but anybody with common sense can see that the result of two HUMANS having sex is another HUMAN, and not an animal or a single celled organism.

Swift

[mgb]

I was discussing the difference between spermcells/eggs and a fertilized cell that divides and multiplies. Cells of people with downs syndrome do that too, don't they? So were did I write that it should be legal to abort people with downs syndrome? Didn't you get that I'm against abortion?

Swift

Well, under your 46 chromosome definition of what constitutes a human, people with downs syndrome don't qualify. Since they aren't human you should have no qualms about aborting them.

You said:


A fertilized cell divides and multiplies. Sperm and eggs do not, they don't even contain 46 chromosomes.

Really you are defining an egg as having 23 chromosomes and same with a sperm cell. So a matching of a 24 chromosome egg is somewhat unnatural using your description.

All I said was be careful. You are becoming rather rigid with your definitions and it's hurting your argument.

[melancholeric]

Sure I'm going to force it down others' throats. We're talking about murder here, only most people are not aware of that. They're still thinking in terms of their own comfort, or they think they're just aborting "a lump of cells". Who the fuck is so sick that he wants to kill his own children, even when unborn?
"People are not aware of that" is a new way to say "people disagree with my opinions".


A fertilized cell divides and multiplies. Sperm and eggs do not, they don't even contain 46 chromosomes. From the moment 1 spermcell and 1 egg melt, we are talking about a human being. Besides, abortion is only an issue if there has been a conception, right? Nobody talks about aborting sperm or aborting eggs. If an embryo younger than 12 weeks is not human life, then why abort it?
If it's a human, why can't it f. ex. breathe without it's mother? Is it conscious? etc.

What exactly makes it "human"?

Is a fetus produced with artificial insemination "human"?


A matter of opinion? That's just a very conveniant way to kill any discussion. Is a foetus human life? Is a Jew human life? Is a negro human life? No? Okay, let's kill them!
Sigh. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between a Jew and a bunch of multiplying cells with no consciousness and completely dependant on it's host.

Don't you have some common sense?[quote]
Here's what you said:
[quote]5. The proper method to avoid unwanted children is birth-control, not abortion. How many unwanted children do you know that regret not being aborted? (Should people be allowed to sue their parents for not being aborted?)
To which I said:

"How many people are using it as a birth control method? It is traumatic to the woman, and she probably knows it ( better than you ). It's not like taking a pill."

Somehow, you then misunderstood it. I didn't say that you don't know anything. I said that a woman who has had an abortion or is contemplating it probably knows better than you about how traumatic it is. It is not, nor should it be, a birth control method. It's a last resort.

As for common sense, does it mean "agreeing with you"?


Sorry, but legalized abortion just opened the door for mass murder. Don't tell me the number of abortions didn't increase dramatically after the legalisation of abortion. Oh, and dying or losing your fertility is the price you pay for killing somebody else.
Great. Now that abortions are legal, I'll have one every week. <--- sarcasm. Just in case someone here is dim enough to miss it.

As for the number of abortions. Do you think someone was keeping a record of illegal abortions? And no one is going to neglect contraception and have an abortion just because it's legal.


Yeah we can bake the embryo's and make breakfast cereals.
Actually, stem cell research would be preferable.

Why don't you like abortions? Do you think it is wrong, but perceive it as a necessary evil?
Not "evil". It has a religious connotation I am not comfortable with. As for wrong, it's subjective. I'm not having one anytime soon, and would not recommend it to anyone. But when we have to choose between a legal abortion in a hospital and a coathanger version, I'd prefer the former.

Abortions have been around pretty much forever. Now when it can be done safely, I don't see a reason to suddenly make it illegal.

[Swift]

Would it have been wrong to abort them? Is it better that they were born into horrible pain and suffering, only to die a few weeks or months later, with no chance of relief or cure? After all, they have the right to live.OK, my heart is not made out of stone, and showing mercy is in this case probably a better option than blindly following rules.

However, this does not explain away the murder on millions of healthy baby's. Exceptions should be possible, but not by the millions.

Swift

[mgb]

I could probably point out several other arguments, but anybody with common sense can see that the result of two HUMANS having sex is another HUMAN, and not an animal or a single celled organism.

Swift

Ok. So invetero fertilization. Not human.

As humans discover more and more about science we become more and more likely to experiment with ourselves, cloning and such. As well, we might be tempted to alter or eliminate problem causing genes. Will that make us less human to you?

[Star]

'A child is a parasite.'

'Motherhood is a life-sentence.'


Don't have a kid, is my advice. They won't thank you for it, the ungrateful little parasites.


I never made the parasite comment. Thanks for the advice, but I did already come to that decision all by myself. I thought it up all in my own pretty little head, do you believe it? :smooch:

[Bugeater]

I read this on somebody's blog...thought it was an interesting analogy.


Consider The Programming Scenario:

Two programmers, a male and a female, collaborate in the creation of a complex computer program -- the planned design-to-completion time is (you guessed it) nine months. The male programmer's contribution to the completed program, due to time constraints caused by another project, is limited to one night of intensive collaboration (program design) with the female programmer. The next morning, the female programmer is left with the nine-month task of producing a working program. After several months of painful, round-the-clock programming the female programmer has decided that the end product of her work will not be worth the time and labor she is putting into it. Since there is no customer for the program and no other outside interests, the programming project is aborted.

If the program was completed successfully, it would be the sole property of the programmer. If the project is aborted the incomplete program is also the property of the programmer.

In case anyone balks at equating a baby with a "product" consider the manufacturing process that takes place in the womb. Does "product of conception" ring a bell?

[Lee]

I could probably point out several other arguments, but anybody with common sense can see that the result of two HUMANS having sex is another HUMAN, and not an animal or a single celled organism.

Actually the initial result is a single celled organism, over time if all goes well and no spanners are thrown in the works then it multiplies, it is then a several celled organism, but nothing much more than a very basic lifeform, nowhere near as complex as an animal.

But you could say that the difference is in the potential, this cluster of cells has the potential to become something far greater and humans meddling hands should be kept far away, to let nature take it's course. This presumes that nature is somehow benelovent, it commits the common fallacy that nature=good, not to mention the other fallacy of assuming mankind is not part of nature. Man is a creature designed by natural selection just like any other, morality is just an adaptation of a percentage of any population that has it's roots in self-interest.

The reason no law can determine when life begins or ends is because life and death are not binary measurements, nature works in shades of gray and those blurred areas will always remain a contentious issue, policies will always fluctuate.

[Swift]

"People are not aware of that" is a new way to say "people disagree with my opinions". No, it's a way of saying: "Do you know all the details? Did you view all the information before you made your opinion about this?"


If it's a human, why can't it f. ex. breathe without it's mother? Is it conscious? etc. Because it depends on it's mother? Do you mean it's ok to kill everybody that's dependant on other people for support or development?


What exactly makes it "human"? It originates from HUMAN SPERM and a HUMAN EGG. Nothing hard to grasp about this one.


Is a fetus produced with artificial insemination "human"?Yes.


Sigh. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between a Jew and a bunch of multiplying cells with no consciousness and completely dependant on it's host.It's only a "matter of opinion", you know?


Somehow, you then misunderstood it. I didn't say that you don't know anything. I said that a woman who has had an abortion or is contemplating it probably knows better than you about how traumatic it is. It is not, nor should it be, a birth control method. It's a last resort.Sure a women that has an abortion has some experience that I will never have. That does not mean she can make better judgements about life and death than anyone else.


Great. Now that abortions are legal, I'll have one every week. <--- sarcasm. Just in case someone here is dim enough to miss it.Legalizing lowered the tresshold immense.


And no one is going to neglect contraception and have an abortion just because it's legal. Legalized abortion gives people the signal that it's ok to be uncarefull or neglectfull. It gives people the signal that they don't have to watch out for unwanted pregnancies anymore. If you get pregnant, you can still have an abortion, right? After all, legalizing abortion is making abortion available as a viable option, right?


But when we have to choose between a legal abortion in a hospital and a coathanger version, I'd prefer the former.Yeah sure, but nobody forced you to do coathanger abortions on yourself.


Abortions have been around pretty much forever. Now when it can be done safely, I don't see a reason to suddenly make it illegal. "Being around forever" is no argument. Theft, murder, etc... have been around forever too.

Swift

[Swift]

Ok. So invetero fertilization. Not human.

As humans discover more and more about science we become more and more likely to experiment with ourselves, cloning and such. As well, we might be tempted to alter or eliminate problem causing genes. Will that make us less human to you?
It's called IN VITRO fertilization. Ok, so technically you don't need sex to make a human. In the future, maybe you don't need a womb anymore. But you still need HUMAN SPERM and a HUMAN EGG, wether or not you replace some genes, etc...

Swift

[Eileen]

Damn, I thought I killed this topic with my amazing ability to separate morality and legality.

[Geoff]

Damn, I thought I killed this topic with my amazing ability to separate morality and legality.

You and your damned morality. Heh. This is a thread about as likely to end as, hmmm

Walmart
Sexually perverse things
Alogical
What you look like


Makes you wonder about the typical member doesn't it?

-Geoff

[Swift]

Actually the initial result is a single celled organism, over time if all goes well and no spanners are thrown in the works then it multiplies, it is then a several celled organism, but nothing much more than a very basic lifeform, nowhere near as complex as an animal. Even if you could compare those first moments of human life with other single celled organisms, I have never heard of abortion that took place within the hour or less of conception. Even when you take the morning after pill (which only prevents nidation), your embryo will already have divided multiple times.
And even humans start out as basic life forms. This is no excuse.


The reason no law can determine when life begins or ends is because life and death are not binary measurements, nature works in shades of gray and those blurred areas will always remain a contentious issue, policies will always fluctuate. Sure. Centuries ago, the Church aproved of abortion because they believed that foetuses do not receive a soul until x weeks. Today, people believe they are simply removing "a lump of cells", like it were a tumor or a parasite, despite the hard evidence science has brought us about the beginning of life.

Swift

[mgb]

It's called IN VITRO fertilization. Ok, so technically you don't need sex to make a human. In the future, maybe you don't need a womb anymore. But you still need HUMAN SPERM and a HUMAN EGG, wether or not you replace some genes, etc...

Swift

Tell me you didn't just correct my spelling?

I hope you are going crazy with the edit button right now.

And you said:

I could probably point out several other arguments, but anybody with common sense can see that the result of two HUMANS having sex is another HUMAN, and not an animal or a single celled organism.

I'm pretty sure that your forceful definition is exactly what you meant. So I guess when a human isn't made that way it defies what you consider "common sense" and becomes more of a scientific experiment than a human being.

(This is what I meant when I said you should be careful - about your definitions, you keep making traps for yourself)

[Swift]

Just a quick thought:

I have seen some people here arguing about the "human-ness" of embryo's and foetuses, and then breathlessly proclaim that abortion should be allowed so people should raise kids they don't want.

Isn't this very schizofrenic?

So what is it? Are they human or are they not? Make up your mind damn it. You can't evolve from "non-human" to "human" at the drop of a hat. You're human or you're not.

Swift

[melancholeric]

No, it's a way of saying: "Do you know all the details? Did you view all the information before you made your opinion about this?"
What details and what information? you haven't said anything that I hadn't heard already.

Because it depends on it's mother? Do you mean it's ok to kill everybody that's dependant on other people for support or development?
Physically dependant, ie. can't survive outside the womb.

It originates from HUMAN SPERM and a HUMAN EGG. Nothing hard to grasp about this one.
Is sperm half human?


It's only a "matter of opinion", you know?
Well, yes. Last time I checked, a born baby was conscious and had reflexes for, say, breathing, eating, etc. that an early stage embryo does not have.

However, now that you accept that it is a matter of opinion, why is your opinion superior to others' to the degree that you consider it your duty to enforce as a law, particularly when you will never have to personally face the issue yourself?

Sure a women that has an abortion has some experience that I will never have. That does not mean she can make better judgements about life and death than anyone else.
But about this particular issue, she can sure make better judgement than you. Do you disagree?

Legalizing lowered the tresshold immense.
Care to provide statistics about illegal abortions perfomed before the legislation?

Legalized abortion gives people the signal that it's ok to be uncarefull or neglectfull. It gives people the signal that they don't have to watch out for unwanted pregnancies anymore. If you get pregnant, you can still have an abortion, right? After all, legalizing abortion is making abortion available as a viable option, right?
I've said this a few times, and I say it again. No one enjoys having an abortion. People will use contraception first, whether legal abortions are available or not. It's a viable option, but not an alternative for condoms. How many fucking times I have to say this?

Yeah sure, but nobody forced you to do coathanger abortions on yourself.
Is anyone forcing anyone to do it? I am talking about the woman, not the embryo, as I don't consider it human.

"Being around forever" is no argument. Theft, murder, etc... have been around forever too.
And have they been legal? Illegalizing abortion is fairly recent. Ancient Jews didn't consider it a murder, for instance.

If a woman accidently causes herself a miscarriage, should she be punished for manslaughter?

[Swift]

Tell me you didn't just correct my spelling?
I hope you are going crazy with the edit button right now. I already noticed, but I left it that way.


I'm pretty sure that your forceful definition is exactly what you meant.I already corrected myself.


(This is what I meant when I said you should be careful - about your definitions, you keep making traps for yourself) It happens. I can only learn from it, can't I?

Swift

[Dman]

You and your damned morality. Heh. This is a thread about as likely to end as, hmmm

Walmart
Sexually perverse things
Alogical
What you look like


Makes you wonder about the typical member doesn't it?

-Geoff

Don't forget the "Does .999...=1?" thread

[mgb]

Just a quick thought:

I have seen some people here arguing about the "human-ness" of embryo's and foetuses, and then breathlessly proclaim that abortion should be allowed so people should raise kids they don't want.

Isn't this very schizofrenic?

So what is it? Are they human or are they not? Make up your mind damn it. You can't evolve from "non-human" to "human" at the drop of a hat. You're human or you're not.

Swift

I don't really care if they are humans or not. People die every day in this world. What's a few more?

If it means you are an embryo getting vacuumed out when you die, instead of getting AIDS from your mom, or shot on the street, you are probably lucky.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by mgbradsh
(This is what I meant when I said you should be careful - about your definitions, you keep making traps for yourself)



It happens. I can only learn from it, can't I?

Swift

(...knows the feeling...)

[Dman]

OK, my heart is not made out of stone, and showing mercy is in this case probably a better option than blindly following rules.

However, this does not explain away the murder on millions of healthy baby's. Exceptions should be possible, but not by the millions.

Swift

I think this may have been glossed over...

If you argue that you can't draw a distinction between when a human life is a life, then where do you draw the distinction between "showing mercy" and aborting a fetus vs. not?

[Boneca]

If they'd find a way to remove the embryo alive, I'd be OK with giving it to a pro-lifer, so he can save it's precious life.
But my body isn't a charity. I think I'd rather commit suicide in a painless way than go through a pregnancy and delivery of a child I don't want. (You do realise that it is PAINFUL to give birth, do you?)

And I don't understand this "a life is worth more than anything else" philosophy, especially if it's not coming from religion.
As has been said, it is perfectly normal for humans to value human life higher than other animals' lives (my pig comparison was only to counter the "but it might feel pain" argument). Every species value themselves higher than other species.
But it is not normal to value the life of an unborn child more than your own health or the health of your already living children, because that is simply counterproductive from a survival point of view. Females of a lot of species simply resorb their embryos if not enough resources are available to rear young.

Swift, you probably think I'm an insensitive asshole for this, but I must say, I think you are too. You want to force women to go through a lot of pain only for your convictions. It is just about differing moral values, and you saying that we're wrong has about as much value as a Moslem condemning a Christian for eating pork. It's horrible to the Moslem, but not to the Christian...so who's right?

[Swift]

What details and what information? you haven't said anything that I hadn't heard already.Okay, but is that true for everyone? Has everybody read about those abortion methods already? And if you already know those things, does that mean I can't point other people to it? Stop attacking me personally please.


Physically dependant, ie. can't survive outside the womb.And? Is that an excuse to kill it?


Is sperm half human?Is sperm able to create new life ON ITSELF (without an egg)??


Well, yes. Last time I checked, a born baby was conscious and had reflexes for, say, breathing, eating, etc. that an early stage embryo does not have.Does that make it less or not human? Then what species is an embryo to you? Is it a mamal? A reptile? A fish? An insect? Since when is functionality a characteristic of humans? Do you mean people in a coma are not human? No, they are just humans in a coma.


However, now that you accept that it is a matter of opinion, why is your opinion superior to others' to the degree that you consider it your duty to enforce as a law, particularly when you will never have to personally face the issue yourself?I was being sarcastic about your relativistic "matter of opinion". Extremistic muslims will have no problem crashing a plane on your face, since you are nothing more than some heathen dog that doesn't abide the laws of Allah. It's only a "matter of opinion", right? <sarcasm>


But about this particular issue, she can sure make better judgement than you. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. If I follow your line of thought, everybody who has gone through surgery should be able to decide about the life and death of their children.


Care to provide statistics about illegal abortions perfomed before the legislation?Can you? Can you prove that the number of abortions lowered or stabilized after legislation? I don't think you need statistics to safely assume that more people made use of legal abortion than backyard coathangers.


I've said this a few times, and I say it again. No one enjoys having an abortion. People will use contraception first, whether legal abortions are available or not. It's a viable option, but not an alternative for condoms. How many fucking times I have to say this?And I just don't believe you. Don't tell me hundreth thousands of abortions a year all come from failed contraception, baby's that were born near molten nuclear reactors or mothers who's life is in danger. The majority of those are just stupid, careless and irresponsable people. My message is that we can do better (not by promoting clinical murder for the terminally stupid).


Is anyone forcing anyone to do it? No. So don't complain if the coathanger gets stuck and you bleed to death. You got what you deserved.


And have they been legal? Illegalizing abortion is fairly recent. Ancient Jews didn't consider it a murder, for instance. I don't give a hoot about the things ancient Jews did. I still think abortion is wrong.


If a woman accidently causes herself a miscarriage, should she be punished for manslaughter? If I kick a pregnant women, so hard in the belly that she loses the baby, is this just assault or this murder ?

Swift

[Swift]

If you argue that you can't draw a distinction between when a human life is a life, then where do you draw the distinction between "showing mercy" and aborting a fetus vs. not?This would be a whole other discussion (it's more about euthanasy (?) than abortion, actually), but I think we can point out some criteria for this:

- pointless suffering
- untreatable pain
- limited life expectancy
- no hope for recovery
- ...

So poverty and stupid, lazy parents don't count.

(Ok, if anybody wants to debate this, keep in mind that I take this list as a whole, so don't come and tell me that I approve of abortion just because somebody has a disease with limited life expectancy and nothing more.)

Swift

[mgb]

Can you? Can you prove that the number of abortions lowered or stabilized after legislation? I don't think you need statistics to safely assume that more people made use of legal abortion than backyard coathangers.

No he can't because people in back alleys with coat hangers don't respond well to question, which was exactly his point.



And I just don't believe you. Don't tell me hundreth thousands of abortions a year all come from failed contraception, baby's that were born near molten nuclear reactors or mothers who's life is in danger. The majority of those are just stupid, careless and irresponsable people. My message is that we can do better (not by promoting clinical murder for the terminally stupid).

I suppose if two people are "stupid, careless and irresponsable people" they are probably doing the world a favor by having an abortion, since your cleverly pointed out that an embryo is half of each parent. Why have more "stupid, careless and irresponsable people" around?

[mgb]

This would be a whole other discussion (it's more about euthanasy (?) than abortion, actually), but I think we can point out some criteria for this:

- pointless suffering
- untreatable pain
- limited life expectancy
- no hope for recovery
- ...

So poverty and stupid, lazy parents don't count.

(Ok, if anybody wants to debate this, keep in mind that I take this list as a whole, so don't come and tell me that I approve of abortion just because somebody has a disease with limited life expectancy and nothing more.)

Swift

Actually, you've structed this argument only to include "stupid, lazy parents" not all the other stuff.

So now abortion is only wrong sometimes?

And what's with the name calling? Do you really think making the choice to have an abortion is so easy? I don't think that's really fair at all. Maybe you should easy up a little before you get branded for your mistakes.

[Swift]

But my body isn't a charity. I think I'd rather commit suicide in a painless way than go through a pregnancy and delivery of a child I don't want. (You do realise that it is PAINFUL to give birth, do you?)Then use contraception or sterilise yourself. Or have yourself sedated when the time comes to give birth to your kid. (You do realise you can get a spinal injection that makes giving birth PAINLESS, do you?)


And I don't understand this "a life is worth more than anything else" philosophy, especially if it's not coming from religion.
As has been said, it is perfectly normal for humans to value human life higher than other animals lives (my pig comparison was only counter the "but it might feel pain" argument). Every species value themselves higher than other species.If you knock down this principle, then the door is open to kill everybody that is unwanted or deformed or whatever.


But it is not normal to value the life of an unborn child more than your own health or the health of your already living children, because that is simply counterproductive from a survival point of view. Females of a lot of species simply resorb their embryos if not enough resources are available to rear young. Yes, but humans are not among the species that eat their babies in times of famine. Humans are the species that help and protect members of their own species in need. Humans are the only species were the babies need several years of intense care and attention from their kin. They don't hatch out to go their own way.


Swift, you probably think I'm an insensitive asshole for this, but I must say, I think you are too. You want to force women to go through a lot of pain only for your convictions. It is just about differing moral values, and you saying that we're wrong has about as much value as a Moslem condemning a Christian for eating pork. It's horrible to the Moslem, but not to the Christian...so who's right? Sure I'm an insensitive asshole about this. But I don't want women to go through a lot of pain. I want them to use their fucking brains before getting knocked up and flushing their kid down the drain, only to smear them back on their face under the form of cosmetics, trying to get knocked up once more.
I want them to fucking take some responsibility and make use of contraception. We have plenty of choice, goddamnit. Condoms in every taste, but nobody uses them. Approving abortion means you don't believe people can do better.

Swift

[Lee]

Question, how do other INTP's generally feel about these kind of questions?

I generally am not interested in the ethics or morality involved in these questions, that is for others to battle over, I am far more interested in the question of why?

Why does abortion exist?
Why do some people oppose abortion?
Why are some people pro abortion?
Why do we apply ethics to abortion in the way that we do?

I tend to want to delve into the underlying causes of these questions, not just the cosmetic top layer, the human emotions surrounding the issue are not nearly as interesting as important as the question of why humans have developed those feeling to sorround the issue.

[Swift]

No he can't because people in back alleys with coat hangers don't respond well to question, which was exactly his point. My common sense tells me the back alley coat hanger method was LESS popular than the hospital legal version, hence, legislation = increase in abortions.


I suppose if two people are "stupid, careless and irresponsable people" they are probably doing the world a favor by having an abortion, since your cleverly pointed out that an embryo is half of each parent. Why have more "stupid, careless and irresponsable people" around? These are your words, not mine. I think even the children of stupid, careless and irresponsable people have the right to live.

Swift

[mgb]

My common sense tells me the back alley coat hanger method was LESS popular than the hospital legal version, hence, legislation = increase in abortions.


Swift

What if your "common sense" was wrong? What if your "common sense" isn't all that common at all?

The fact is a lot of people were having abortions before it was legalized in the US. Enough that they said, we should probably legalize it. It was "common sense" to them.

I really have to ask what the foundations for your arguments are? You seem to think that it's immoral to have an abortion, fine. But why are you so seemingly vocal in your opposition? Immorality shouldn't bother you this much, if that's all it is.

[Star]

But I don't want women to go through a lot of pain. I want them to use their fucking brains before getting knocked up and flushing their kid down the drain, only to smear them back on their face under the form of cosmetics, trying to get knocked up once more.
I want them to fucking take some responsibility and make use of contraception. We have plenty of choice, goddamnit. Condoms in every taste, but nobody uses them. Approving abortion means you don't believe people can do better.


Such hatred, such dogmatism. Such insistence on responsibility, rules and regulations. You sure you're an INTP? Or maybe you just don't have a lot of experience with sex? You've never been blinded by passion?

[mgb]

Sure I'm an insensitive asshole about this. But I don't want women to go through a lot of pain. I want them to use their fucking brains before getting knocked up and flushing their kid down the drain, only to smear them back on their face under the form of cosmetics, trying to get knocked up once more.
I want them to fucking take some responsibility and make use of contraception. We have plenty of choice, goddamnit. Condoms in every taste, but nobody uses them. Approving abortion means you don't believe people can do better.

Swift

What have humans ever done to make you think we can do better?

[melancholeric]

Okay, but is that true for everyone? Has everybody read about those abortion methods already? And if you already know those things, does that mean I can't point other people to it? Stop attacking me personally please.
You are assuming that people who have abortions don't know what they are doing. Or that you know better. It's kind of hard to not attack you personally when you make such assumptions.

And? Is that an excuse to kill it?
It's not an excuse. If someone is to abort her embryo, I don't think she needs to make any excuses. For you, anyway. I explained why I don't consider it a human.

Is sperm able to create new life ON ITSELF (without an egg)??
No. Is an embryo able to survive without the woman? Or with the woman, for that matter. Most pregnancies end with miscarriages before the woman even notices being pregnant.

Does that make it less or not human? Then what species is an embryo to you? Is it a mamal? A reptile? A fish? An insect? Since when is functionality a characteristic of humans? Do you mean people in a coma are not human? No, they are just humans in a coma.
A bunch of cells that might someday be born. Or not.

I was being sarcastic about your relativistic "matter of opinion". Extremistic muslims will have no problem crashing a plane on your face, since you are nothing more than some heathen dog that doesn't abide the laws of Allah. It's only a "matter of opinion", right? <sarcasm>
Well that's arguable and completely another topic. However, give me one reason why it should be allowed. I -and many others- have given a few reasons why abortions should be legal. You have failed to refute those.

Yes, I disagree. If I follow your line of thought, everybody who has gone through surgery should be able to decide about the life and death of their children.
Basically, you are right and others are wrong, because you say so and others will have to just live with it. Even if it means renting one's womb for 9 months, giving birth (not fun, but not your problem exactly) and supporting the child for about two decades. Just because you think a bunch of cells is human.

Why exactly do you think you are able to draw the better judgement?

Can you? Can you prove that the number of abortions lowered or stabilized after legislation? I don't think you need statistics to safely assume that more people made use of legal abortion than backyard coathangers.
Did I claim they lowered? No.

Homemade abortions aren't that difficult. It's an option if legal abortions aren't available. That's why we need to have it legal.

And I just don't believe you. Don't tell me hundreth thousands of abortions a year all come from failed contraception, baby's that were born near molten nuclear reactors or mothers who's life is in danger. The majority of those are just stupid, careless and irresponsable people. My message is that we can do better (not by promoting clinical murder for the terminally stupid).
Have you ever done anything irresponsible?

the 15 year old girl may act irresponsibly, but having an unwanted baby is a bit too harsh of a punishment.

And yes, a good amount of unwanted pregnancies here are because of failed contraception. I don't know about the US, where they have age restrictions and "absistence education", both of those being ridiculous.


No. So don't complain if the coathanger gets stuck and you bleed to death. You got what you deserved.
K. If someone wants to have sex without having a child, death is somehow "deserved".

I don't give a hoot about the things ancient Jews did. I still think abortion is wrong.
You compared it to theft and murder. I pointed out a flaw in that reasoning. I don't give a shit about what Jews did either.

If I kick a pregnant women, so hard in the belly that she loses the baby, is just assault or this murder ?
Ask the woman. It's her choice.

Are you going to answer my question? I want your opinion, because you want to legislate that. the woman's opinion is completely irrelevant to you.

I am not the one imposing my views on others, nor is the woman in question. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

[Dman]

Question, how do other INTP's generally feel about these kind of questions?

I generally am not interested in the ethics or morality involved in these questions, that is for others to battle over, I am far more interested in the question of why?

Why does abortion exist?
Why do some people oppose abortion?
Why are some people pro abortion?
Why do we apply ethics to abortion in the way that we do?

I tend to want to delve into the underlying causes of these questions, not just the cosmetic top layer, the human emotions surrounding the issue are not nearly as interesting as important as the question of why humans have developed those feeling to sorround the issue.

I'll take a quick stab at it -

Why does abortion exist? = for various reasons, some women do not want to give birth to or be responsible for a baby

Why do some people oppose abortion? = because they believe it is their duty to protect a life that they feel deserves to live

Why are some people pro abortion? = because they believe it is an individual's choice to decide what they are or are not responsible for

Why do we apply ethics to abortion in the way that we do? = because potentially a human life may be at stake

ok it's not perfect but it's a start

[Swift]

So now abortion is only wrong sometimes? No. Abortion is still wrong. I just said we could make an exception for those Tsjernobil disabled kids. This does not talk away the abortion of thousands of healty babies. Making an end to one person's suffering doesn't give anybody an excuse to have their kid dismantled inside the womb, so that they could go back to their comfortable little lives like nothing happened.


And what's with the name calling? Do you really think making the choice to have an abortion is so easy? I don't think that's really fair at all. Maybe you should easy up a little before you get branded for your mistakes. Maybe you are right. Maybe I'm a bit harsch. But sometimes people just need a cold shower to wake up. And after all, I'm here to defend MY point of view, not to feel sorry for people having a hard time making a choice about something I consider plainly WRONG. It's just the same as considering to kill the pedestrian you just hit with your car, just to get away from responsibility and other inconveniences.

Swift

[Boneca]

(You do realise you can get a spinal injection that makes giving birth PAINLESS, do you?)I have never heard of a woman who was completely sedated during labour, unless she had a caeserean section. If it is as easy as you say, how come women still complain about labour pains?


I want them to fucking take some responsibility and make use of contraception. We have plenty of choice, goddamnit. Condoms in every taste, but nobody uses them. Approving abortion means you don't believe people can do better. Has anybody in this thread argued against contraception? I've at least seen melancholeric tell you time and again that abortion does not replace contraception, it is a complimentary method in those cases when contraception did not work.
It is way easier to use a condom than having an abortion, so nobody would use it as a contraception method.

But I still wonder, why is it always the woman's fault when contraception is not used? Men who have sex without using condoms are never blamed for anything. I wonder, would you be OK with having women giving birth to their unwanted children and then just leave the babies with the father and forget about them?

[Swift]

TIME OUT - It's 1.40 AM and I need to sleep. See you guys back tommorrow.

[mgb]

Maybe you are right. Maybe I'm a bit harsch. But sometimes people just need a cold shower to wake up. And after all, I'm here to defend MY point of view, not to feel sorry for people having a hard time making a choice about something I consider plainly WRONG. It's just the same as considering to kill the pedestrian you just hit with your car, just to get away from responsibility and other inconveniences.

Swift

HARSH.

Let's say that you did something. It was something you wanted to do, but you felt like you didn't have much of a choice. It was legally ok, but morally questionable. Then you had someone screaming bloody murder at you and calling you a stupid lazy idiot.

It's not a cold shower you are giving them. The cold shower was having the abortion and making that decision. And it's not the same as killing a pedestrian in a hit and run because it's not illegal.

Seriously, I think you should actually talk with (not to) someone that has had an abortion. Assuming they want to talk to you. Maybe you could get some insight into how hard the decision was to make and how they made it. I can assure you that this decision isn't taken lightly by anyone that's had to make it, despite your assertions to the contrary.

[Dman]

So who is responsible for the baby that the mother does not want? Is it society’s responsibility now?

It’s very likely that the woman who would have had an abortion, but couldn’t, would just abandon it somewhere. This would become common. In the off chance that it survives being abandoned (which would be a pretty cruel way to die, much worse than if it were aborted when it was simply a bundle of cells, btw) whose responsibility now? Who pays?

Songbird mentioned that there are plenty of people who are willing to adopt, but I haven’t heard a response as to why she hasn’t yet, or why there are ALREADY too many orphans in the world that haven’t been adopted yet…now multiply that number by x. Where are all these caretakers coming from? Throwing babies in crowded orphanages where disease is rampant and they get very little skin contact or love from a caring person isn’t exactly a kind life for the baby…


PS I admire your sticking your ground and willingness to debate this point, don’t take it too personally and give up…this is too interesting

[C.J.Woolf]

Now that I have had time to think through a post, here it is (he said with a sense of dread).

I believe that every child should be a wanted child. It's best for women, it's best for society, and it's best for the children themselves. I agree with the poster who wrote that an unwanted child is a "life sentence" for a mother. Unwanted children impose a huge social cost. And unwanted children are likely to be unhappy. It is not worth screwing up at least two lives to force an unwanted child on the world.

So, I believe in birth control. The sooner, the better, but sometimes it's later. Abortion is post-conception birth control -- the birth control of last resort. I think abortion is regrettable but necessary. Because it's an individual decision and there are so many circumstances, it's also none of my or your damn business. It's between the woman and God, if she believes in one.

Ah, you might say, but what of the poor souls who never get their chance at life? Well, I don't believe a small lump of cells has a soul that has only one chance at life. Whatever, in a conflict between the interests of a fetus and a woman -- between a potential human being and a actual one -- I favor seniority.

Woman is the life-giver. No one is born without a woman's consent. The flip side is that there are any number of ways and opportunities for a woman to prevent a child, from before conception to after birth. Whenever it happens, the result is the same -- no child.

A word to those who feel abortion is immoral: Outlawing abortion will not eliminate it, it will only eliminate safe abortion. Where there's a will there's a way. I'm sure it's frustrating to watch it happen, but ultimately you are powerless to save any fetus, except by persuading pregnant women to keep them. NOT coercion. NOT browbeating. Let songbird be your inspiration. Lead with love, not with anger.

As for "father's rights": I don't believe in them. If a woman isn't willing to bear your child, find another who will or do without a child.


Damn, I thought I killed this topic with my amazing ability to separate morality and legality.
Sadly, no. Your separation Kung Fu is strong, but the mooshing together Kung Fu is stronger. This topic will not die as long as someone thinks morality and legality go together like... and egg and a sperm!

[misutii]

You make some good points about the priorities we make with other people's lives, but you come across so bitter that your point is almost completely lost in the tone.


arguments on topics like abortion are simply things that we've all heard, perhaps multiple times in our lives, and there just never seems to be any new ideas, everyone is rooted in their place and uses the same arguments, reworded to satisfy their individual taste, over and over, hence i take threads like these witha grain of salt and hopefully provide humour for other people (i'm sure most of us find controversial topics like these quite humourous in an odd way)

admittedly my opinion is just as stupid as everyone else's, but it's mine so i like it more, as well i love that it's ok to offend other people's sensibilities over here without any verbal consequences... in real life when you present opinions its like a 10 foot wall of bitching collapses on you and after kicking it for 5 minutes you're forced to limp away with a snarl and a sore foot

[Swift]

What if your "common sense" was wrong? What if your "common sense" isn't all that common at all?Well then, prove me wrong. Prove me that making abortion available for everybody didn't increase the number of abortions. This is a simple case of demand and supply. If the supply increases, the consumption increases. Don't give me that crap about lacking statistics. Do you ever use your brain without needing statistics?


I really have to ask what the foundations for your arguments are? You seem to think that it's immoral to have an abortion, fine. But why are you so seemingly vocal in your opposition? Immorality shouldn't bother you this much, if that's all it is.
1. I just care about those poor, helpless foetuses. I showed you the sick, disgusting methods by which abortion occurs and I totally disapprove of it.

2. I think that the mentality of killing the unwanted is inherently sick and eventually will affect other area's of life and society. Who will want to take care of the elderly and the disabled if such a message is officialized? Killing the unwanted is just not civilized.
I remember one story about Alexander the Great (or somebody else), where he conquered some savage tribe, and the first thing he did was to teach those people to take care of their elderly parents, instead of beating them to death when they were no longer of any use. Take a fucking example from this instead of making the lowest in humans the norm for everybody.

Swift

[Helios]

You know someone should do the "save toby" thing with a fetus, that would be a riot! Like demand a million pound sterling, or the sweet unborn baby get torns to pieces and sucked outed with a hoover vac and pitched into a dumpster(by a legit Doc of coarse), WTF call the lil fucker Toby even , nice cute name.

[Swift]

You are assuming that people who have abortions don't know what they are doing. Or that you know better. It's kind of hard to not attack you personally when you make such assumptions.No you attacked me because I was referring to a site that shows the horrific details of some abortion methods. You assumed everybody already knows that stuff. Well, I didn't when I first saw it. But perhaps I'm the only one around?


It's not an excuse. If someone is to abort her embryo, I don't think she needs to make any excuses. For you, anyway. I explained why I don't consider it a human. I don't have to agree with your explanations. So tell me, from what moment DO you consider a foetus/newborn/infant human?


No. Is an embryo able to survive without the woman? Or with the woman, for that matter. Most pregnancies end with miscarriages before the woman even notices being pregnant. People die on their own too. That's not the problem. It's the willfull intervention I condone the most.


Well that's arguable and completely another topic. However, give me one reason why it should be allowed. I -and many others- have given a few reasons why abortions should be legal. You have failed to refute those.Why the fuck should I give you reasons to allow abortion?? And please mention the reasons which I failed to refute.


Basically, you are right and others are wrong, because you say so and others will have to just live with it. Even if it means renting one's womb for 9 months, giving birth (not fun, but not your problem exactly) and supporting the child for about two decades. Just because you think a bunch of cells is human.Oh, there we have the "You don't have a womb, so shut up" argument again. Well yes, I believe I am right. So do you, isn't it? And did I fail to give arguments to support my point of view? So don't tell me people should do as I please simply because I believe I am right.


Why exactly do you think you are able to draw the better judgement?Why makes you think you are able to?


Have you ever done anything irresponsible? Rarely. But if irresponsible actions cause harm to others, people should be accounted for. This applies to everyone, right?


the 15 year old girl may act irresponsibly, but having an unwanted baby is a bit too harsh of a punishment.Having a baby a punishment? Tell that to any women that is happy with her pregnancy and you'll get a nasty look. Okay, it may be inconvenient for several months (only the last 4-5 months actually), but should murder be allowed to escape mere inconvenience?


And yes, a good amount of unwanted pregnancies here are because of failed contraception. I don't know about the US, where they have age restrictions and "absistence education", both of those being ridiculous.I agree. How can you ask teenagers to be carefull when you don't point out their role and resposibility in the creation of new life?


K. If someone wants to have sex without having a child, death is somehow "deserved". No, death is deserved if you prefer backyard coathanger abortions above a normal pregnancy and a healthy delivery. You knew the risks.


You compared it to theft and murder. I pointed out a flaw in that reasoning. I don't give a shit about what Jews did either. You said it was ok because it has been around forever. I pointed out that wasn't a correct argument either.


Ask the woman. It's her choice. So if I club you to death, is this premeditated murder or does your family have a choice? (I hope you are on good terms with them.)


Are you going to answer my question? I want your opinion, because you want to legislate that. the woman's opinion is completely irrelevant to you. Ok, your question. Should parents be legally accounted for when they involuntarily kill their kids? I say the law should definately provide sanctions for this, especially if neglectfull conduct can be proven. However, accidents are accidents, and while I think the law should be harsh, it's also my opinion that judges should be flexible and mercifull. A judge that finds no fault in the behavior of the parents can easily close/classify (?) the case. I don't know if this is possible in the Anglo-american system, but it is nonetheless my point of view.


I am not the one imposing my views on others, nor is the woman in question. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you don't like being pregnant, avoid it by using contraception. And sure the women in question is imposing her view on others. Did the foetus asked to be terminated?

Swift

[Swift]

You know someone should do the "save toby" thing with a fetus, that would be a riot! Like demand a million pound sterling, or the sweet unborn baby get torns to pieces and sucked outed with a hoover vac and pitched into a dumpster(by a legit Doc of coarse), WTF call the lil fucker Toby even , nice cute name.What's the "save Toby" thing?

[Swift]

I have never heard of a woman who was completely sedated during labour, unless she had a caeserean section. If it is as easy as you say, how come women still complain about labour pains?I'm not a gynecologist, so I can't really tell you about the amount of pain women go through during labour. I can tell you though, that a lot of women are willing to go through the pains of labour to give birth to their child. Anyway, I don't understand the connection between labour pain and abortion. Are some people really choosing for abortion because they want to avoid the pain of labour? Then just give birth under full sedation. I don't think this is healthy for the kid, but hey...


Has anybody in this thread argued against contraception? I've at least seen melancholeric tell you time and again that abortion does not replace contraception, it is a complimentary method in those cases when contraception did not work.
It is way easier to use a condom than having an abortion, so nobody would use it as a contraception method.You just admitted that abortion is being used as a form of birth control.
But let me tell you more. In Russia, abortion is viewed as so normal that it is not unusual to encounter women who have gone through 5 or 6 abortions and consider this normal.


But I still wonder, why is it always the woman's fault when contraception is not used? Men who have sex without using condoms are never blamed for anything. Women still have more control over the use of contraception. The only thing men can do is wear condoms. And I never said that men should be exempt from their responsibility. Plus women can choose not to have sex with men that don't use condoms. And after all, it's the women that are choosing for abortion. Men unfortunately have no legal rights over their unborn children.

I admit, the burdens and responsibility's are not shared 50/50, but I exempt nobody. If women claim to have more rights over what happens to their body, then this only means their responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancy is greater as well.


I wonder, would you be OK with having women giving birth to their unwanted children and then just leave the babies with the father and forget about them? I'm ok with that, at least if the father wants to take care of his offspring. If not, he can have the kids adopted. I would be happy to take care of MY kids, even if their bitch of a mother wouldn't want them anymore.

Swift

[Swift]

Let's say that you did something. It was something you wanted to do, but you felt like you didn't have much of a choice. It was legally ok, but morally questionable. Then you had someone screaming bloody murder at you and calling you a stupid lazy idiot. Yeah, not very nice of me huh? But I'm choosing sides with the foetus here, not with the women that has a tough time aborting her unborn child. Poor girl. :huh:

Forgive me if I offended somebody on this forum by my harsh (thank you for correcting me, MG) comments. It was never my intention to single out the posters that have undergone an abortion and rub it in their face. I am free to voice my opinion here, and people who don't like that shouldn't read my posts.

Back to your statement. What do you mean with "not having much of a choice"? Is having a baby and giving it away for adoption such a bad choice? Sure you don't have a choice if having a baby means your husband will find out you fucked the (coloured) poolboy, but should the unborn child pay for that mistake?


It's not a cold shower you are giving them. The cold shower was having the abortion and making that decision. And it's not the same as killing a pedestrian in a hit and run because it's not illegal.Making something legal doesn't make it right.


Seriously, I think you should actually talk with (not to) someone that has had an abortion. Assuming they want to talk to you. Maybe you could get some insight into how hard the decision was to make and how they made it. I can assure you that this decision isn't taken lightly by anyone that's had to make it, despite your assertions to the contrary. Ok. I can acknowledge the fact that some people have a hard time making that decision. It means they still understand something is wrong about it. (I assume you're not talking about the financial side, right?) Then again, some people don't have a hard time with it.
So any women on this forum that has had an abortion and is interested can come and talk with me and give me some insight.

Swift

[PonderBee]

My body is not open for regulation by anyone.

[Swift]

So who is responsible for the baby that the mother does not want? Is it society’s responsibility now? That's pretty evident. Society should provide help and support for mothers in need (so they won't be tempted to abandon their child), take care of an adoption without too much delay for the kid, etc...


It’s very likely that the woman who would have had an abortion, but couldn’t, would just abandon it somewhere. This would become common. In the off chance that it survives being abandoned (which would be a pretty cruel way to die, much worse than if it were aborted when it was simply a bundle of cells, btw) whose responsibility now? Who pays? Society pays of course. Women should be able to give their unwanted children in for adoption, even anonymously, if they would want that. It should be avoided at all costs that babies would be left out on the street.


Songbird mentioned that there are plenty of people who are willing to adopt, but I haven’t heard a response as to why she hasn’t yet, or why there are ALREADY too many orphans in the world that haven’t been adopted yet…now multiply that number by x. Where are all these caretakers coming from? Throwing babies in crowded orphanages where disease is rampant and they get very little skin contact or love from a caring person isn’t exactly a kind life for the baby…Lack of adoption parents or room in orphanages is a problem indeed. Raising children is expensive, so most people who would want to adopt an unwanted child probably never get to it because of financial problems. Government could stimulate adoption by giving adoption parents (limited) financial support (so they won't do it for the money), or give them certain benefits (like paying for the schooling or medical costs of the adopted kid). And room in orphanages is just a question of money.


PS I admire your sticking your ground and willingness to debate this point, don’t take it too personally and give up…this is too interesting Thanks. :)

Swift

[melancholeric]

Next time you masturbate, someone is going to scream genocide. Just to point out the subjectivity of this....


No you attacked me because I was referring to a site that shows the horrific details of some abortion methods. You assumed everybody already knows that stuff. Well, I didn't when I first saw it. But perhaps I'm the only one around?
Well, I said that you haven't said anything that I didn't know already. That's not an attack. And I believe that if someone is having an abortion, she probably will find out everything she needs to know about it. It's not something you'd do on a whim, believe it or not.


I don't have to agree with your explanations. So tell me, from what moment DO you consider a foetus/newborn/infant human?
I think it's at the point when it can survive outside the womb. that's what I think, some others would say it's after birth. Some (Christians) believe every sperm is sacred. Etc.

People die on their own too. That's not the problem. It's the willfull intervention I condone the most.
You asked is the sperm able to create life on itself. I asked is the embryo able to survive without the womb. You didn't answer. Not that you'd need to, I just wanted you to consider that.

Why the fuck should I give you reasons to allow abortion?? And please mention the reasons which I failed to refute.
Well, I mentioned the pragmatic reasons about womans safety in legal vs. coathanger abortions, but you simply don't seem to care about the woman. The bunch of cells is more important to you.

Then, I argued that the woman should be allowed to make the choice. Simply because you can't draw any better judgement about the issue than her.

Oh, there we have the "You don't have a womb, so shut up" argument again. Well yes, I believe I am right. So do you, isn't it? And did I fail to give arguments to support my point of view? So don't tell me people should do as I please simply because I believe I am right.
Is saying "it's a murder" an argument?

And I am not telling people what to do. Quite the opposite.

Why makes you think you are able to?
Absolutely nothing. I am not drawing judgements here. That's what being pro choice means.

Rarely. But if irresponsible actions cause harm to others, people should be accounted for. This applies to everyone, right?
Well yes. How hard, that's an entirely different question. Believe me, unwanted pregnancy is and the decision of ending the pregnancy vs. having the baby is hard enough in itself. Even though you make it sound it's like grocery shopping for the woman.

Having a baby a punishment? Tell that to any women that is happy with her pregnancy and you'll get a nasty look. Okay, it may be inconvenient for several months (only the last 4-5 months actually), but should murder be allowed to escape mere inconvenience?
Because some (most) women are happy being pregnant, every pregnancy is wanted. Flawless logic. I salute you.

I agree. How can you ask teenagers to be carefull when you don't point out their role and resposibility in the creation of new life?
For once we agree on something. However, even if you point out the responsibility, you still can't assume that the 14 year old girl is going to act responsibly. Since when have teenagers been responsible?

No, death is deserved if you prefer backyard coathanger abortions above a normal pregnancy and a healthy delivery. You knew the risks.
Ie. if abortion is illegal, yet someone wants to have sex without getting pregnant, and somehow gets pregnant without wanting to have the child, she deserves to die.

You said it was ok because it has been around forever. I pointed out that wasn't a correct argument either.
It wasn't a correct argument to you, because you equated it with murder and theft. I pointed a flaw in that reasoning.

So if I club you to death, is this premeditated murder or does your family have a choice? (I hope you are on good terms with them.)
I haven't been inhabitating my mothers uterus for a while now.


Ok, your question. Should parents be legally accounted for when they involuntarily kill their kids? I say the law should definately provide sanctions for this, especially if neglectfull conduct can be proven. However, accidents are accidents, and while I think the law should be harsh, it's also my opinion that judges should be flexible and mercifull. A judge that finds no fault in the behavior of the parents can easily close/classify (?) the case. I don't know if this is possible in the Anglo-american system, but it is nonetheless my point of view.
Involuntarily kill their kids. Yes, they should be legally accounted. Are you ever going to answer my question with an actual answer?

If you don't like being pregnant, avoid it by using contraception. And sure the women in question is imposing her view on others. Did the foetus asked to be terminated?
Contraception is still not 100 % reliable. And do you think the fetus has the same legal status with an adult?

I'm getting a bit tired on this. I've gone through this argument with my ESFJ Christian fundie mother some gigajillion times, and this is not much different. Well, it is. I'm using different language. ( Nothing personal. ) Not that you disagree, but your judgemental, self righteous, dogmatic attitude.

[Boneca]

I'm not a gynecologist, so I can't really tell you about the amount of pain women go through during labour. I can tell you though, that a lot of women are willing to go through the pains of labour to give birth to their child.But some women DO NOT WANT children. Is that so hard to understand? Looking at your replies to other people, I get the picture that you think women like us deserve to die.
Our lives are obviously not as holy as the life of an unborn foetus.


But let me tell you more. In Russia, abortion is viewed as so normal that it is not unusual to encounter women who have gone through 5 or 6 abortions and consider this normal.So? They are uneducated and/or do not have access to other contraception methods. If they had, they would use them, not because abortion is immoral, but because it is easier.


I admit, the burdens and responsibility's are not shared 50/50, but I exempt nobody. If women claim to have more rights over what happens to their body, then this only means their responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancy is greater as well.Now, this doesn't work. You have all the time argued that women should have NO control over their body, so why should we suddenly have it now? If our bodies belong to society anyway (which you seem to suggest), why isn't it society's problem to take care of the kids?


1. I just care about those poor, helpless foetuses. I showed you the sick, disgusting methods by which abortion occurs and I totally disapprove of it.Please. What part of "they do not feel pain" don't you understand?
I don't understand why you think foetuses (foetii?), and more specifically embryos are so mistreated. They do not feel pain, nobody misses them, and they will not end up in hell. Where is the problem?

[melancholeric]

This did strike me as somewhat amusing, in a strange way...



So any women on this forum that has had an abortion and is interested can come and talk with me and give me some insight.

Let's assume that I was a woman who had had an abortion. So far, you've called me a murderer, irresponsible, ignorant, etc.. and have expressed very little interest to understand the womans point of view. About a decision so difficult that either of us will never fully understand it. You'd be the last person on this board with whom I'd talk about it if I were in that situation.

Also, you said this:

I'm here to defend MY point of view, not to feel sorry for people having a hard time making a choice about something I consider plainly WRONG.

Hey, if you really are interested, try http://www.afterabortion.com/ . (for instance. Or google for "abortion support group".) Just a friendly advice; they don't know your views on this, and you may want to keep it that way, especially if you want gain insight on how easy thing it is to have an abortion.


One more thing.....

..this is too interesting
What does "interesting" mean on your planet? Just curious.

This is getting quite Claraesque. Edited three times so far...

[Eileen]

I think that the frequency of abortion is a symptom of a larger problem--society is failing women in a way. I'm watching this happen every day (except that I'm seeing young girls bring babies into the world whose daddies are hell bent on teaching them to be gangstas, RATHER than young girls who are having abortions). Most states will NOT take the plunge and offer thorough, accurate sex education; schools just won't touch it. I am CONVINCED that if young girls were taught about their bodies and ways to protect themselves, the frequency of abortions AND of teen pregnancies would diminish (not disappear, because there are idiots out there). Abortions happen because women don't want to be pregnant and/or don't want to have that particular kid at that particular time. If you teach how to avoid it and MAKE THE BIRTH CONTROL WIDELY AVAILABLE AND EASY TO ACQUIRE, then the abortion rate will decrease.

I keep seeing people who are both against abortion AND against real sex education, and I pretty much just want to kick them in their stupid fucking faces, because you can't have it both ways.

[Lee]

I think that the frequency of abortion is a symptom of a larger problem--society is failing women in a way. I'm watching this happen every day (except that I'm seeing young girls bring babies into the world whose daddies are hell bent on teaching them to be gangstas, RATHER than young girls who are having abortions). Most states will NOT take the plunge and offer thorough, accurate sex education; schools just won't touch it. I am CONVINCED that if young girls were taught about their bodies and ways to protect themselves, the frequency of abortions AND of teen pregnancies would diminish (not disappear, because there are idiots out there). Abortions happen because women don't want to be pregnant and/or don't want to have that particular kid at that particular time. If you teach how to avoid it and MAKE THE BIRTH CONTROL WIDELY AVAILABLE AND EASY TO ACQUIRE, then the abortion rate will decrease.

I keep seeing people who are both against abortion AND against real sex education, and I pretty much just want to kick them in their stupid fucking faces, because you can't have it both ways.Actually teenage pregnancy is linked towards a three main factors, 1. Whether on not a father or father figure is present in a girls life and 2. the recources available in the enviroment 3. the risk of early death, short life expetancy or infant mortality.

In short many girls in deprived and dangerous neigbourhoods with absent fathers and shorter life expectancy want to have children sub-consciously... I realise this sounds quite absurd but as a general rule it has been shown to be fairly true in various sociological studies. I know I try to explain everything through natural selection and thats because... well, we are products of natural selection and I cannot see any field of research more valid when questioning peoples behaviour.

The reason why these girls have children young is a simple mathmatical gamble, my children are going to be deprived, are going to lack security and are more likely to come to an early death, the best bet for any organism is to pump out as many children as quickly as possible in order to achieve the best they can out of a bad situation. The situation is reversed for a person who is in a resource rich enviroment with a stable home, in this scenario it is beneficial to have few children and to make sure that each child becomes the best that they can be, recources, education etc. all are pushed on individuals to focus on quality not quantity. I know this sounds like I am reducing human behaviour to a genetic economy and thats because...well, it is... various large scale studies show this, I mean where on earth does the economy come form if not human behaviour?

Sex education rarely achieves the results you are looking for, it may work in individual cases but the root of teenage pregnancies is deeper than sex education can dig, ultimately the causes must be attacked if we wish to achieve anything.

Not to mention the fact that girls are biologically designed to breed from about 14 onwards, and some teenagers actually want children consciously, partly because of state aid, partly because of ethnic culture and partly because they are female and have motherly instincts.

edit: I should note that girls may only have an increased desire to have sex, they will not necassarily want a child, proper availability of contraception could help things however even then other factors interfere such as family, religion, culture, the male involved, alchohol, drugs, rape etc.

[Swift]

I believe that every child should be a wanted child. It's best for women, it's best for society, and it's best for the children themselves. I agree with the poster who wrote that an unwanted child is a "life sentence" for a mother. Unwanted children impose a huge social cost. And unwanted children are likely to be unhappy. It is not worth screwing up at least two lives to force an unwanted child on the world.Who are you to judge whether or not people can live happy lives? Are unwanted children less able than others to enjoy eg riding a bike or watching cartoons? Who says the parents of that child won't accept it over time? Besides, if you don't want a "life sentence", just give the kid away for adoption.


Because it's an individual decision and there are so many circumstances, it's also none of my or your damn business. It's between the woman and God, if she believes in one.I'm going to leave God out of this discussion. But I'm going to make something very clear.

Although several people here have told me that it's "none of my business" and that I should not "force my views down the throat of other people", I do think abortion is the business of society, not the individual.

I make no discrimination between an unborn kid inside the womb and one outside. Abortion is the willfull termination of the life of another human being. Therefore it's society's business. If my neighboor suffocates his kid because it doesn't stop screaming, is that "an individual's choice"? No. This affects society as a whole. Your rights end where others' rights begin.


A word to those who feel abortion is immoral: Outlawing abortion will not eliminate it, it will only eliminate safe abortion. Where there's a will there's a way. I'm sure it's frustrating to watch it happen, but ultimately you are powerless to save any fetus, except by persuading pregnant women to keep them. NOT coercion. NOT browbeating. Let songbird be your inspiration. Lead with love, not with anger.I'm not going to place camera's between the legs of every woman. Just like you say, where there's a will there's a way.
But I do believe in leading by example. And legalizing abortion was the worst example we could ever set. (Just admit it, everybody here agrees one way or another that it's "regretable", a "last option", etc...) It's the bad example set by society that's the most frustrating, not the fact that I'm not able to rescue every goddamn single fetus.

Swift

[CoHo]

Who are you to judge whether or not people can live happy lives?

Who are you to judge that a needle hole full of cells 24 hours after conception is a human?

[Swift]

Next time you masturbate, someone is going to scream genocide. Just to point out the subjectivity of this....Cells in your body are replaced every second by the millions. None (zero !) of them had the potential of growing into another human being.


And I believe that if someone is having an abortion, she probably will find out everything she needs to know about it. It's not something you'd do on a whim, believe it or not.Isn't finding this out when you're on the verge of having an abortion a bit late? Don't you think people will think twice and act a little wiser when they have seen these facets of abortion?


I think it's at the point when it can survive outside the womb. that's what I think, some others would say it's after birth. Some (Christians) believe every sperm is sacred. Etc. Suppose science can create artificial wombs. Are foetuses then suddenly human from an earlier age?


You asked is the sperm able to create life on itself. I asked is the embryo able to survive without the womb. You didn't answer. Not that you'd need to, I just wanted you to consider that.It is my point of view that human life deserves protection in EVERY stage of it's life, inside and outside of the womb. Vulnerability is no excuse to kill a foetus.


Well, I mentioned the pragmatic reasons about womans safety in legal vs. coathanger abortions, but you simply don't seem to care about the woman. The bunch of cells is more important to you.There are more than enough people that seem to care about the women on this forum, don't you think? What's wrong with caring more about the innocent foetus? It doesn't have a choice, it can't defend itself and it has no voice.


Well yes. How hard, that's an entirely different question. Believe me, unwanted pregnancy is and the decision of ending the pregnancy vs. having the baby is hard enough in itself. Even though you make it sound it's like grocery shopping for the woman. Sure it's fucking hard. There deciding whether or not they're gonna kill their own kids. I just pointed out that some people actually go down that road. That doesn't mean I make it sound like grocery shopping.


Because some (most) women are happy being pregnant, every pregnancy is wanted. Flawless logic. I salute you.I never said that. I pointed out you shouldn't view pregnancy as a form of punishment.


For once we agree on something. However, even if you point out the responsibility, you still can't assume that the 14 year old girl is going to act responsibly. Since when have teenagers been responsible? There are also a lot of adults that can't act responsibly. But sex education is likely to prevent a lot of unnecessary abortions and teenage pregnancies. Anyway, it's not the foetus it's fault that it's mother has behaved irresponsible.


Ie. if abortion is illegal, yet someone wants to have sex without getting pregnant, and somehow gets pregnant without wanting to have the child, she deserves to die. Where did I say that getting unwantingly pregnant equals deserved death? But likewise, nobody said getting unwantingly pregnant equals an abortion. Those women chose (or worse, they were forced by family) to have dangerous back alley operations.


It wasn't a correct argument to you, because you equated it with murder and theft. I pointed a flaw in that reasoning.What was exactly my flaw?


I haven't been inhabitating my mothers uterus for a while now. Your life deserves protection, whether you're in a uterus or not.


Involuntarily kill their kids. Yes, they should be legally accounted. Are you ever going to answer my question with an actual answer?What do you mean, I didn't answer your question? I did.


Contraception is still not 100 % reliable. And do you think the fetus has the same legal status with an adult?It should have. And if contraception is still not 100 % reliable, then use two different kinds (eg pill + condom). And if that doesn't work, just have the baby and give it up for adoption.


Not that you disagree, but your judgemental, self righteous, dogmatic attitude. What did you expect? I can't say on one hand that I believe that a foetus is human life from the moment of conception and that human life needs to be protected, and on the other hand proclaim that it's one person's choice to decide over life and death of that human life! You can't get one without the other.

Swift

[Swift]

Who are you to judge that a needle hole full of cells 24 hours after conception is a human?Who are you to judge that it isn't?

EDIT: Let me point it out again.

Human sperm cell + human egg = human embryo

[CoHo]

Who are you to judge that it isn't?

Well, apparently unlike you, I'm a rational person who can tell that a few cells do not have emotions, brain or a thought process.

I also think it is funny that you put this in the "What trait do you most despise?" forum:


People that tell you what to do and how to live your live and that are persistent in doing that.

[Swift]

But some women DO NOT WANT children. Is that so hard to understand? Well not wanting children is the whole point of abortion, right? Is it so hard to understand killing others for that is wrong?


Looking at your replies to other people, I get the picture that you think women like us deserve to die. No, but hey, nobody forced you to do that back alley coathanger abortion.


Our lives are obviously not as holy as the life of an unborn foetus.If you're planning on an abortion, you're a hell of a lot less innocent than your foetus.


Now, this doesn't work. You have all the time argued that women should have NO control over their body, so why should we suddenly have it now? If our bodies belong to society anyway (which you seem to suggest), why isn't it society's problem to take care of the kids?I never argued women should have no control whatsoever over their body's. I highly recommend the use of contraception. But your rights end where others' rights begin, which include the foetus' right to live.


Please. What part of "they do not feel pain" don't you understand?What part of "they do feel pain" don't you understand? What part of "being ripped/sucked to pieces without anaesthetic" don't you understand? What part of "respect for human life" don't you understand?


I don't understand why you think foetuses (foetii?), and more specifically embryos are so mistreated. They do not feel pain, nobody misses them, and they will not end up in hell. Where is the problem? Well I believe that they do feel pain, maybe not in the early stages of development, but as I pointed out earlier, it's not because you don't feel pain, that it should be possible to kill you. Drugging you doesn't give me an excuse to kill you.

Swift

[Swift]

Well, apparently unlike you, I'm a rational person who can tell that a few cells do not have emotions, brain or a thought process.You are merely rationalizing the termination of a human being in it's most early stages of development.


I also think it is funny that you put this in the "What trait do you most despise?" forum: Yeah funny huh? If you don't like it, don't read this fucking thread.

As I pointed out earlier, your rights end where the rights of another human being (in this case a foetus) begin.

When the personal attacks come, you just know your adversary's don't have any good argument anymore. Or maybe it's your style of discussing?

Swift

[CoHo]

You are merely rationalizing the termination of a human being in it's most early stages of development.

So are you okay with people taking birth control pills?

[Boneca]

I never argued women should have no control whatsoever over their body's. I highly recommend the use of contraception. But your rights end where others' rights begin, which include the foetus' right to live.But don't you realise that you are essentially saying that women have no control. If I'm raped and become pregnant, I'm then held hostage by this embryo, whose right I'm not allowed to infringe on according to you. Is that fair?


Well I believe that they do feel pain, maybe not in the early stages of development, but as I pointed out earlier, it's not because you don't feel pain, that it should be possible to kill you. Drugging you doesn't give me an excuse to kill you.You think you believe they feel pain? Come on. There is not a chance an embryo that is only a few days old can feel pain. It hasn't developed nerve cells yet. (Partial-birth abortions is another matter, but that is not what I'm arguing for.)
The problem is that you are so hung up on the words "human life" that you refuse to see reason. Killing an embryo is not the same as murdering someone, because an embryo doesn't have consciousness, and it doesn't have any friends or relatives that would mourn it.
An embryo is a human life in the same way as a nut is a tree. You don't say you're cutting trees when you eat nuts, do you? Yet, that's what the "murdering embryos" sound like to me.
I repeat, a potential human being is not, and should not be treated as, an actual human being.

[mgb]

You are merely rationalizing the termination of a human being in it's most early stages of development.
Yeah funny huh? If you don't like it, don't read this fucking thread.

As I pointed out earlier, your rights end where the rights of another human being (in this case a foetus) begin.

When the personal attacks come, you just know your adversary's don't have any good argument anymore. Or maybe it's your style of discussing?

Swift

You keep telling people that if they don't like, don't read the thread. Which is kind of funny because it's the hottest issue we've had since religion. And in this case you are merely rationalizing your "right" to judge others.

What they are doing is finding holes in your arguments and pointing them out. It's not that they don't like the argument. I think you misconstrue their intentions.

And I really haven't seen any personal attacks so far on the part of your adversaries. Should we conclude that if there is a personal attack on your part that you have run out of things to say?