View Full Version : Abortion Debate (As Scheduled)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 04:35
This (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/15/gallup-poll-finds-51-of-americans-call-themselves-pro-life.aspx) seems to be a very interesting statistic. Though the vast majority of Americans approve of abortion in certain circumstances, it would appear that Americans are moving more to the cautious edge of defining certain circumstances.
I approve. :book:
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2009, 05:29
Uh...
You should not be allowed to even control your own body, or what? You are not entitled to decide when you want offspring or not?
Interesting perspective. :gah:
If not for abortions I'd be a dad. Thank GOD I am not.
Marshal Murat
05-16-2009, 05:35
EMFM - I'd like to point out that while many Americans are now pro-life, they haven't all come around to the whole "let's ban abortions" thing yet. Which is a nice moderation from my point of view.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 05:47
EMFM - I'd like to point out that while many Americans are now pro-life, they haven't all come around to the whole "let's ban abortions" thing yet. Which is a nice moderation from my point of view.
Exactly what the poll says. Most Americans are pro-life, and yet most Americans are also in favour of abortions in some circumstances. This coincides rather nicely with my position (secular pro-life with abortions legal only in certain cases).
You should not be allowed to even control your own body, or what?
A fundamental opinion behind the pro-life movement is that a fetus isn't your own body.
You are not entitled to decide when you want offspring or not?
Yes. You should have made that decision earlier though.
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2009, 06:12
Yes. You should have made that decision earlier though.
Ok... so condom bursting, vomiting when on birth control pills.. Those are not valid reasons?
basicly what you are saying is that one should wait having sex untill married to avoid complications? Welcome to the year 2000.
I'll use myself as an example...
Scenario 1: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario 2: I make a girl pregnant, she does NOt give birth. We split up, she now has a child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
Now, explain why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 06:16
Ok... so condom bursting, vomiting when on birth control pills.. Those are not valid reasons?
basicly what you are saying is that one should wait having sex untill married to avoid complications?
No, I'm saying one should assume the potential responsibility of sex. I'm willing to consider first trimester abortions for birth control purposes (on the condition that you pay for them yourself), but that's all.
Now, explain why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2?
The child is alive and has a shot at life?
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2009, 06:25
The child is alive and has a shot at life?
Well, now she got another child who got a shot at life... And THAT one will probably grow up with two loving parents.
You mean this child has less value of life? Or do you mean this child would have happened if she would have got the first one too?
Oh, and we kill some millions of babies each time we :daisy:, right?
Just urinating will kill quite a LOT of potential life.
Touched your balls anytime this week? The sudden impact against your balls will have killed thousands of potential humans.
*yawn*
Yeah abortion is bad. bad, bad abortion.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 06:33
You mean this child has less value of life? Or do you mean this child would have happened if she would have got the first one too?
Can I kill you if it means that your parents will end up with another [presumably better]* child?
*No insult intended with that, I'm playing on your analogy/example.
Oh, and we kill some millions of babies each time we :daisy:, right?
Just urinating will kill quite a LOT of potential life.
Touched your balls anytime this week? The sudden impact against your balls will have killed thousands of potential humans.
*yawn*
Yeah abortion is bad. bad, bad abortion.
The argument that killing millions of unfertilized cells, or even an embryo, means that all abortion should be legal is a laughable example of hyperbole and completely unrelated to that of a violent abortion of a fetus.
Scenario 1: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario 2: I make a girl pregnant, she does NOt give birth. We split up, she now has a child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
This isn't the 70s. We know the risks of sex, both in pregnancy and diseases, and therefore must act more resonsibly about the consequences. If you don't want to be a father and decide to go have sex with a girl without taking the proper prevention, then you KNOW the risks, and if you get her pregnant, it is YOUR responsibility.
HoreTore
05-16-2009, 07:53
(on the condition that you pay for them yourself)
So....
What you're saying, is that rich people shouldn't have kids, but we should get more dirt poor kids...?
Samurai Waki
05-16-2009, 08:10
I'm all for it, my girls were a conscientious decision between two people who agreed the alternative wasn't agreeable, but that it didn't mean people shouldn't be able to decide. I'm truly sorry for those who weren't ready to be received into the world without proper guidance and instruction.
You buy what you break, if you make a mistake you should live with it. Abortion should only be possible only under extreme circumstances, might not look like a human being, yet, but it is one if you allow it to live. I wouldn't be able to live with knowing that, abortion is so very wrong on so many levels.
Anyway, back to the subject on hand. You guys just ain't gonna let me concentrate on my finals, are you? :P I personally do not think that abortion should ever be legal, and here is why. I used to think that it should be legal for rape cases or times when the mother's life was on the line, and then it should be the mother's choice. Here is why I changed my mind.
In the case of rape, someone viciously assaulted someone else, and committed a crime against a human being. Does that mean that we should retaliate and commit another crime against a human being? Sure, she did not ask to be raped and bear the child, but the rapist forced it on her, and has to be punished for his crime. The baby should not be the one punished for the rapists crime. Abort the :daisy: rapist, not the innocent kid! O wait, I forgot. All the people who are for killing innocent children are the ones against killing evil murderers and rapists. That makes a lot of sense. The rapist committed the crime, not the baby. Let the baby be born, then she can put it up for adoption if she does not want it. It is not right that the woman has to carry the baby, it is a wrong the rapist did to her. That does not mean that the baby should pay for the wrong though. It is innocent and did not maliciously put itself into her womb.
As far as when the mother's life is on the line, that just seems too much like playing God to me. By natural selection one person is gonna die and another is not, what right do we have to come in and kill the hope of the survivor? What I mean is that the kid is innocent, and isn't trying to kill the mother, so why does it deserve to die? Likewise if it was a case of the mother would live but the baby was gonna die, and they could cut the mother up in a way that would save the baby's life but kill the mother, I would say no. The mother is innocent and does not deserve to die. It was natural selection that selected her to live.
When you think of it a little deeper, that is like a husband knowing his wife will die if she does not get a healthy organ transplant and there are no doners with the right type, so he takes a chainsaw and murders his daughter to get her organ so that he can save his wife. You can't kill your children to save yourself, it is just not right.
All that said, the only time that I am not sure of is incest. I unfortunately have not made my mind up on that one. There are communities where the population is the result of inbred relationships, and most of them are just normal people. On the other hand very close incest esp can really make an unatural mess of a kid with extreme physical and mental disorders. I don't know, it seems so wrong, yet killing it seems so wrong. I guess I will have to wait until I find more out about it.
HoreTore
05-16-2009, 10:17
I'm all for giving fetuses full human rights.
But the mother still has full human rights. So, what is the situation we have then? The fetus has the right to live and become a human, check. But where does it say that since I'm a human being, I'm entitled to live where I want, including inside another human? If I want to live on another persons property(or body, in this case), I would have to ask their permission first, of course. So, the fetus has every right to live, but the woman has the right to evict the fetus from her body, since the fetus has no right to live on another persons property.
If abortion is banned, I'm going to live inside Angelina Jolie. Or just outside of her. And then inside her. And then just outside again.....
Pannonian
05-16-2009, 10:28
If abortion is banned, I'm going to live inside Angelina Jolie. Or just outside of her. And then inside her. And then just outside again.....
Make up your bloody mind for goodness sake.
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 10:31
If you don't want to be a father and decide to go have sex with a girl without taking the proper prevention, then you KNOW the risks, and if you get her pregnant, it is YOUR responsibility.
So your punishment must be a child? Looks like you love children.... can I remind you it's the unwanted child who pays for your mistake? I wish abortion was legal when my father was born (june 1945, nine month after Liberation of France, bless those wild liberation parties), he won't be struggling everyday to find reasons not to practice self-destruction.
So your punishment must be a child? Looks like you love children.... can I remind you it's the unwanted child who pays for your mistake? I wish abortion was legal when my father was born (june 1945, nine month after Liberation of France, bless those wild liberation parties), he won't be struggling everyday to find reasons not to practice self-destruction.
He didn't say it was a punishment, he said it was a responsibility. It is abortionists (such as Obama) who say that children are punishments. If you do not want the responsibility of a child, then yes, having sex is a 'risk' in that sense, but that does not mean that a child is a punishment. Children are responsibilities, and abortion is just a cheap way to get out of that responsibility by murdering a child.
This generalisation has been edited out in the original post. BG
Not only is this an incredibly lazy (not to mention offensive and inaccurate) generalization, it is also completely irrelevant.
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 11:18
He didn't say it was a punishment, he said it was a responsibility. It is abortionists (such as Obama) who say that children are punishments. If you do not want the responsibility of a child, then yes, having sex is a 'risk' in that sense, but that does not mean that a child is a punishment. Children are responsibilities, and abortion is just a cheap way to get out of that responsibility by murdering a child.
Right. I can understand the point. I'd just say that it's "responsibilities" for people around, but actually a punishment for the parents in most cases.
To keep on a ground I know, life is still a punishment for my father 64 years after his birth for being an unwanted child. Something he was not responsible of but definitely was the victim.
You all anti-abortionnists always think about the parents responsibilities and never about the child's future feelings, likely to be really unbalanced, and the way he or she will pass it to his own children.
Not only is this an incredibly lazy (not to mention offensive and inaccurate) generalization, it is also completely irrelevant.
If Prolife people were prolife so that women could suffer, do you think that that would be important? I think that motivatin matters a lot.
Right. I can understand the point. I'd just say that it's "responsibilities" for people around, but actually a punishment for the parents in most cases.
To keep on a ground I know, life is still a punishment for my father 64 years after his birth for being an unwanted child. Something he was not responsible of but definitely was the victim.
You all anti-abortionnists always think about the parents responsibilities and never about the child's future feelings, likely to be really unbalanced, and the way he or she will pass it to his own children.
Trist, do you know how many people I have met whose parents loved them and wanted them who turned out a bunch of emos? It can happen both ways. While I certainly do not have proof that it is representative, it just so happens that every 'unwanted child' I know is pretty darned happy with life and getting along darned well. The problem is with the way parents raise kids, not with parents having kids. The answer is not to teach people to murder their kids so that they will not be bad parents, but to teach them to be good, responsible parents. As I said, children are a responsibility, not baggage. They need love, and they need to be raised responsibly. People need to be made to take responsibility, not allowed to dodge it by murdering an innocent child so that they can have pleasure.
To keep on a ground I know, life is still a punishment for my father 64 years after his birth for being an unwanted child. Something he was not responsible of but definitely was the victim.
You all anti-abortionnists always think about the parents responsibilities and never about the child's future feelings, likely to be really unbalanced, and the way he or she will pass it to his own children.
I am going to be really careful here. If he had a choice, would he rather not exist? I very good friend of mine is a rape-child, and he was devastated when learned that and he is totally out of control sometimes and things aren't going very well. But when given the choice, well having the choice.
I am going to be really careful here. If he had a choice, would he rather not exist? I very good friend of mine is a rape-child, and he was devastated when learned that and he is totally out of control sometimes and things aren't going very well. But when given the choice, well having the choice.
Truth be told, I think that most would rather have the chance at life. And you know what? A lot of children whose parents wanted to have them end up regretting life. My parents did not intend on having children at first, but then my sister 'happened' so they had her. 2 children later I was born, and my ma ended up having 6 altogether. :P My parents were very poor and afraid of what would happen if they had kids and didn't want the responsibility. Tell you what, I am drrned glad that they didn't take the easy way out and murder me and my 5 siblings. I love life, and so does everyone of my brothers and sisters. The answer is not to tell the parents to murder their babies, but rather tell them to take responsibilty and be good parents. My parents did not want kids, but they were good parents and loved their kids.
HoreTore
05-16-2009, 11:55
Tell you what, I am drrned glad that they didn't take the easy way out and murder me and my 5 siblings.
Murder is what happens after birth, ie. when we're talking about an actual human being.
A fetus is removed by a medical procedure, and is not a human being. ~;)
Murder is what happens after birth, ie. when we're talking about an actual human being.
A fetus is removed by a medical procedure, and is not a human being. ~;)
That's not entierly true and pretty much a matter of definition.
If Prolife people were prolife so that women could suffer, do you think that that would be important? I think that motivatin matters a lot.
Your attempted line of reasoning was "all men in favour of abortion are man-whores who just want abortion to be legal so they can screw around without consequence, therefore any argument they may present in favour of abortion is just a pretext and may be assumed to be fatuous." I would argue it is quite irrelevant since I take the view that the arguments for and against abortion should be considered on their own merits rather than the perceived moral authority or depravity of those presenting them. Otherwise why bother to debate them at all? Far better to just spend the time slinging mud at our political opponents to discredit them.
Murder is what happens after birth, ie. when we're talking about an actual human being.
That's what you think you feel like, but when somebody kicks a pregnant woman in the belly you are just that tiny little bit more disgusted.
Murder is what happens after birth, ie. when we're talking about an actual human being.
A fetus is removed by a medical procedure, and is not a human being. ~;)
Fine, then I will have your brain removed via medical procedure and I will not be commiting murder. You are not a human being, you are just an adult. See what I mean? 'Fetus', just like adult, is simply a stage in human development, but both are still humans.
EDIT: and BTW, 'medical procedure' does not make something not murder. A lot of the most henius acts in history, including those committed under both Hitler and Stalin were 'medical procedures'. Murder by another name is still murder.
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 12:58
Hitler and Stalin
Here they come.... Bye-bye, debate.
Here they come....
They are the best examples of medical procedures being used to the detriment of humanity. What is up with the Hitler fetish on this board?
EDIT: bye bye debate? Why, because I pointed out that medical procedures do not necessarily have to used for good? Why do you and Lemur go crazy at the mention of the name?
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 13:04
They are the best examples of medical procedures being used to the detriment of humanity. What is up with the Hitler fetish on this board?
Do I really have to tell you? Fifteen years ago my girlfriend aborted, hence I used a medical procedure to the detriment of humanity, hence it looks like I can be put more or less on par with Hitler and Stalin, hence no more debate.
Do I really have to tell you? Fifteen years ago my girlfriend aborted, hence I used a medical procedure to the detriment of humanity, hence it looks like I can be put more or less on par with Hitler and Stalin, hence no more debate.
Not really, as I never equated anything, but only pointed out that something being a medical procedure does not mean that it isn't murder. And FYI I think we are going through one of the darkest chapters in human history, where human life is being thought of as nothing at all, and being taken by the millions while everyone smiles on. It is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse! Mothers kill their own babies! Whatever maternal right women had, they lost in this sad chapter of history. What kind of society do we live in when daily mothers murder their babies and one half of society really doesn't care, and the other half defends it as the mother's right? I think that is very sad, and I think your gf did a very horrible thing. That does not mean that I think she is Hitler or Stalin or even on par though. The were single people who murdered millions. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I cannot classify killing an innocent baby so that you do not have the responsibilty of raising it after you created it as anything else.
EDIT: And before accusations of supporting abortion clinic bombing come, no, I do not think that a murder justifies a murder.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2009, 13:28
Do I really have to tell you? Fifteen years ago my girlfriend aborted, hence I used a medical procedure to the detriment of humanity, hence it looks like I can be put more or less on par with Hitler and Stalin, hence no more debate.
I believe that his point was to assert that simply labeling it a "medical procedure" did not address the moral element of whether or not it is "life" or a parasitic growth that can become life. His goal was not to equate you with Hitler or Stalin. He should have made the referant clearer.
Let's make a good effort to be clear and respectful folks.
Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.
For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 13:37
Not really, as I never equated anything, but only pointed out that something being a medical procedure does not mean that it isn't murder. And FYI I think we are going through one of the darkest chapters in human history, where human life is being thought of as nothing at all, and being taken by the millions while everyone smiles on. It is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse! Mothers kill their own babies! Whatever maternal right women had, they lost in this sad chapter of history. What kind of society do we live in when daily mothers murder their babies and one half of society really doesn't care, and the other half defends it as the mother's right? I think that is very sad, and I think you gf did a very horrible thing. That does not mean that I think she is Hitler or Stalin or even on par though. The were single people who murdered millions. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I cannot classify killing an innocent baby so that you do not have the responsibilty of raising it after you created it as anything else.
And you know what? Neither I or her have any true regrets about it, we were eighteen, had our life to build and did not want to spend our lives working in a food-processing factory in order to raise the kid. And of course you don't equate things, you just say that "it is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse". Very glad to hear that.
Boy, abortion is of all times, not only a modern issue, the difference beeing that legal abortion is much cleaner than hidden abortion. Do you realise how many women bled themselves to death practising hand-made illegal abortions? Read "the cider house rules" by John Irving if you can. Abortions just can't be prevented, the best to be done is to have a clean medical procedure for it.
Ironside
05-16-2009, 13:41
I'm all for giving fetuses full human rights.
I'm not, particullary considering the amount of spontanious abortions (that are much higher than the man made ones). Giving them full human rights would mean that thier death would suddenly be a great concern, unless you have some particular idea that doing anything "unnatural" when it comes to life and death is bumbling around with powers you shouldn't have.
FFS I am going to be really careful here. If he had a choice, would he rather not exist? I very good friend of mine is a rape-child, and he was devastated when learned that and he is totally out of control sometimes and things aren't going very well. But when given the choice, well having the choice.
That can easily become metaphysical. If your parents had sex a few days later then your conception, you wouldn't exist, but your parents would have another child. So your birth prevented another person's existance, thus you did in one way kill that person. Was that person given a choise? True, the matter is more complicated due to the presence of a physical being, but the question is the same.
Personally I run with pragmatism, abortions have been made since stone age no matter the laws, better to come up with a fair comprimise between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child then to press the mattor into some kind of absolutism.
BTW, in vitro fertilization were several fertilized eggs are used and some thrown away? Should be legal or not? On what grounds?
I believe that his point was to assert that simply labeling it a "medical procedure" did not address the moral element of whether or not it is "life" or a parasitic growth that can become life. His goal was not to equate you with Hitler or Stalin. He should have made the referant clearer.
Let's make a good effort to be clear and respectful folks.
Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.
For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.
Sorry Seam, I thought I had made that quite clear with the way I had worded it. In fact, I do not see how I could have made it clearer.
As for Stalin, I did not say that Stalin did them himself, but I said under Stalin. The commies did all kinds of messed up experiments on people. Memory is foggy, but I am sure that EMFM could back me up.
And you know what? Neither I or her have any true regrets about it, we were eighteen, had our life to build and did not want to spend our lives working in a food-processing factory in order to raise the kid. And of course you don't equate things, you just say that "it is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse". Very glad to hear that.
Boy, abortion is of all times, not only a modern issue, the difference beeing that legal abortion is much cleaner than hidden abortion. Do you realise how many women bled themselves to death practising hand-made illegal abortions? Read "the cider house rules" by John Irving if you can. Abortions just can't be prevented, the best to be done is to have a clean medical procedure for it.
My point is not that you or your gf are worse, but that humanity is worse. You did not kill all the babies killed by abortion, humanity as a whole did. I said that this was a dark chapter in human history, not in yours. You know what Trist, I usually avoid using people's personal experience as examples, esp when I deem what they do as murder, as that can be a very sensitive issue, but you willing brought your own experience into the debate. If you and your gf did not want the baby, then you could have not had sex yet. And do you know what? My dad worked three jobs at a time. He worked crappy physical labour jobs that almost paid nothing. He raised 6 kids with my mom who stayed at home. They were both very happy people who do not regret the choices they made in life. I am alive, thanks to them. They made a decision to have unprotected sex when they didn't want children, and it was not a smart one, but they took responsibility for their stupid decision, and their lives were not over. They are now the parents of 6 children, two of whom have college degrees, and 3 of whome are currently attending college. My sister now makes more money with her one job than my dad did with all three, and my ma is going to be able to live the rest of her life in economic security. They made a stupid decision, but at least they only made one. You cannot justify killing a baby because you had sex knowing the risks and do not want to work and support you kid. And BTW, it is much much easier for a parent to go to college now adays.
As far as illegal abortions, those were done because of the horrible stigma associated with single mothers, something that you do not have to worry about now.
That can easily become metaphysical. If your parents had sex a few days later then your conception, you wouldn't exist, but your parents would have another child. So your birth prevented another person's existance, thus you did in one way kill that person. Was that person given a choise? True, the matter is more complicated due to the presence of a physical being, but the question is the same.
No he did not, because killing someone is not preventing them from having life, but from taking the life from them when they have it. If something does not have life, life cannot be taken away. If life is not taken away, then it cannot be killed.
HoreTore
05-16-2009, 14:05
For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.
The fetus may have every right it wants, it still cannot be given a right that violates another persons rights. As such, a woman will still be able to decide that the fetus can't stay in her womb anymore, since she has the right to decide what persons(and you've already made the fetus into a person) she wants to associate with - if she no longer wants to associate with the fetus, then it's bye, bye fetus, no matter how many rights they have. They're free to find another womb to grow in though, of course.
HoreTore
05-16-2009, 14:09
I'm not, particullary considering the amount of spontanious abortions (that are much higher than the man made ones). Giving them full human rights would mean that thier death would suddenly be a great concern, unless you have some particular idea that doing anything "unnatural" when it comes to life and death is bumbling around with powers you shouldn't have.
Yeah, that's another issue for the pro-lifers. Once you treat a fetus as a human, you'll have to start investigating spontaneous abortions for possible homicides. Sounds like a jolly good idea, at least if your mission in life is to cause even more pain and suffering.
The fetus may have every right it wants, it still cannot be given a right that violates another persons rights. As such, a woman will still be able to decide that the fetus can't stay in her womb anymore, since she has the right to decide what persons(and you've already made the fetus into a person) she wants to associate with - if she no longer wants to associate with the fetus, then it's bye, bye fetus, no matter how many rights they have. They're free to find another womb to grow in though, of course.
No, because when she decided to take in a helpless human being who is completely dependent on her, that human being becomes her responsibility until it is at a stage where either it can take care of itsself or where others can take care of it. If she did not want it in her stomach, then she did not have to put it there. If I am a parent living in the Appalachians and I decide that I do not want my 3 year old anymore, I cannot throw her out into the cold and let her die because I do not want to associate with her anymore. Why do we have child support? Because parents DO have a responsibility to their kids, whether they like it or not.
Tristuskhan
05-16-2009, 15:46
As far as illegal abortions, those were done because of the horrible stigma associated with single mothers, something that you do not have to worry about now.
Indeed, but I fail to see the difference between an abortion caused by the fear of a stigma and an ordinary one in our current society. Would abortion be illegal nowadays, women would still be bleeding themselves dry too often, no matter the reason why they do it. And it's something one can't support. Blood is blood, nevermind the reason why it is spilled.
Che Roriniho
05-16-2009, 15:56
Until a fetus can survive outside the mother, it isn't a baby. A person's appendix can be removed, and removing a fetus is exactly the same. I wouldn't care 2 hoots if I was aborted, as, weell, I wouldn't be around to care.
This (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/15/gallup-poll-finds-51-of-americans-call-themselves-pro-life.aspx) seems to be a very interesting statistic. Though the vast majority of Americans approve of abortion in certain circumstances, it would appear that Americans are moving more to the cautious edge of defining certain circumstances.
Not to step on CA's more serious poll-smoking, but apparently there are problems with that Gallup poll. Makes sense; why would Americans' opinions shift so much in just a year (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/more-about-unbearable-lightness-of.html)?
The nuance that I've written about recently deals with the simple fact that Americans seem to care quite a bit why a woman seeks an abortion. And once they are aware of a plausible rationale, anti-abortion attitudes appear to relax.
The best example comes from 2003, at the very height of one of the congressional battles over so-called "partial-birth" abortions. The very same ABC poll that showed 62% of Americans favoring a ban on these much-demonized procedures also showed that 61% favored a "health of the mother" exception, even in these cases.
It's an article of faith among right-to-lifers, of course, that a "health exception" makes a mockery of any abortion restrictions. And that's why in a famous moment in one of the presidential debates last year, John McCain sneered and held up "quote marks" when referring to a "health exception." The public reaction was not positive, indicating that abstract hostility towards abortion may well disguise a more sympathetic attitude when it comes to actual women making actual decisions about a pregnancy. To put it another way, who cares if there's a shift towards self-reported "pro-life" sentiments, if consistent majorities basically approve of the constitutional and legal status quo?
In any event, it's maddening that so few polls on abortion get into these sorts of questions. Until they do, we are all entitled to dismiss the big headlines, and rely on hard data like election results to determine which basic direction in abortion policy Americans tend to support. Based on that data, the anti-abortion cause is not doing very well.
Indeed, but I fail to see the difference between an abortion caused by the fear of a stigma and an ordinary one in our current society. Would abortion be illegal nowadays, women would still be bleeding themselves dry too often, no matter the reason why they do it. And it's something one can't support. Blood is blood, nevermind the reason why it is spilled.
Sorry Tris, but I fail to understand you.
Until a fetus can survive outside the mother, it isn't a baby. A person's appendix can be removed, and removing a fetus is exactly the same. I wouldn't care 2 hoots if I was aborted, as, weell, I wouldn't be around to care.
lol, a baby by your definition cannot survive without people taking care of it either. Babies, inside or outside the womb are helpless. And trust me, if you were a baby and had urine injected into your viens so that your entire tissue mass became inflamed and died a dispicably horrible death (an actual medical abortion method that was used by doctors in the US), you would have cared. By your reasoning, Hitler was ok too. Those Jews aren't around to care, so who cares? (To clarify, no, I am not saying people who support abortion are Hitler, but that the victim not being around to care doesn't make a darn)
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2009, 17:02
Vuk, never heard of Godwin's law, huh?
Your argumentation technique has much to wish for.
Right. I can understand the point. I'd just say that it's "responsibilities" for people around, but actually a punishment for the parents in most cases.
To keep on a ground I know, life is still a punishment for my father 64 years after his birth for being an unwanted child. Something he was not responsible of but definitely was the victim.
You all anti-abortionnists always think about the parents responsibilities and never about the child's future feelings, likely to be really unbalanced, and the way he or she will pass it to his own children.
Children are only a punishment if you treat them like one. Rape victims, I have no problem with them getting an abortion, it wasn't their choice to get knocked up. It's people who go "Well, I'm going to have sex knowing the risks and not live up to my responsibilities should something happen." that bother me.
Vuk, never heard of Godwin's law, huh?
Your argumentation technique has much to wish for.
I have heard of it Kadagar, and thank you for your thoughtful post. There is nothing wrong with mentioning Hitler in a debate, there is only a problem when people start saying "Oh, Hitler had hair like yours, so you must be Hitler", or "You said Hitler! See how dumb you are?!" You are doing the latter.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 17:50
Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.
This is mostly true. However, that isn't to say that the Soviets didn't like to experiment. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13518281.200-murderous-experiments-of-stalins-police-chief-.html) Whether it is medical or not depends entirely on your definition thereof. :book:
I'm all for giving fetuses full human rights.
But the mother still has full human rights. So, what is the situation we have then? The fetus has the right to live and become a human, check. But where does it say that since I'm a human being, I'm entitled to live where I want, including inside another human? If I want to live on another persons property(or body, in this case), I would have to ask their permission first, of course. So, the fetus has every right to live, but the woman has the right to evict the fetus from her body, since the fetus has no right to live on another persons property.
Isn't it the responsibility of a parent to provide a place for their child to live in most Western countries, and to provide their child the basic necessities of life? If the womb is the only place the fetus can live (and in the vast majority of cases, the woman is not pregnant because of a rape), then if the fetus had full rights as a child it would be the responsibility of the mother to ensure to the best of her ability that the fetus is living in adequate shelter.
Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2009, 18:28
Don't forget about the Soviet ape soldiers...
Scenario 1: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario 2: I make a girl pregnant, she does NOt give birth. We split up, she now has a child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
Now, explain why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2?
Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?
rory_20_uk
05-16-2009, 19:29
Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?
Doesn't sound much better to me.
~:smoking:
Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2009, 19:38
Doesn't sound much better to me.
~:smoking:
So you support infanticide? :inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 19:49
Don't forget about the Soviet ape soldiers...
Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.
Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.
Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?
There is also option C, which is adoption.
rory_20_uk
05-16-2009, 19:51
So you support infanticide? :inquisitive:
Well, you know the phrase: "ask a stupid question..." ~;)
~:smoking:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 20:29
Yeah, that's another issue for the pro-lifers. Once you treat a fetus as a human, you'll have to start investigating spontaneous abortions for possible homicides. Sounds like a jolly good idea, at least if your mission in life is to cause even more pain and suffering.
No you don't, no more than you have to investigate all fatal heart attacks as potential murders by, say, suxamethonium chloride.
Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2009, 20:54
Well, you know the phrase: "ask a stupid question..." ~;)
~:smoking:
But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2009, 21:00
But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.
Huh? :wall:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2009, 22:04
Huh? :wall:
That is how it came across to me as well - perhaps you would like to clarify?
Huh? :wall:
Sorry, but that is what it came across as to me too.
Kadagar_AV
05-17-2009, 09:45
But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.
I killed it? I stuck my hands up her womb and strangled it or what?
I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.
:wall:
I killed it? I stuck my hands up her womb and strangled it or what?
I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.
:wall:
But you still think it was the right thing to do?
Rhyfelwyr
05-17-2009, 10:26
I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.
I suppose that is kind of different then. I bet that a lot of people that say there are pro-choice would not choose to have an abortion when their own child is involved, if they were there at the time and were part of the decision-making process.
It's all very well taking about rights and all but when it gets down to it I think most people would see it 'aint right.
I suppose that is kind of different then. I bet that a lot of people that say there are pro-choice would not choose to have an abortion when their own child is involved, if they were there at the time and were part of the decision-making process.
It's all very well taking about rights and all but when it gets down to it I think most people would see it 'aint right.
The whole point of the pro-choice argument is they should be able to make that choice, not whether people would or would not.
Kadagar_AV
05-17-2009, 10:34
Godwin's law already several posts back, and now I've been accused of murder.
I think this thread doesnt offer anything worthwhile.
*bows out*
Godwin's law already several posts back, and now I've been accused of murder.
I think this thread doesnt offer anything worthwhile.
*bows out*
If what my history professor told me is the truth, contrary to what Wikipedia says, Godwin's law is when someone references Hitler to another person or group of people, something that has not been done in this thread. A mention of the name Hitler is NOT invoking Godwin's law.
Sounds to me like you are insecure about the subject (which means that it must not rest well with you) and are making lousy excuses to avoid it. People who are against abortion do think it is murder for the most part, that is why they disagree with it. You knew that coming into the debate and you were supposed to be debated either that it is not murder or that it is acceptable murder.
Ironside
05-17-2009, 10:59
No he did not, because killing someone is not preventing them from having life, but from taking the life from them when they have it. If something does not have life, life cannot be taken away. If life is not taken away, then it cannot be killed.
Would you support mass murder for the birth of one child (in vitro-fertilization)?
Would you support mass murder for the birth of one child (in vitro-fertilization)?
Embryos do NOT need to be killed in this process. It can be done with no loss to human life.
HoreTore
05-17-2009, 11:48
If what my history professor told me is the truth, contrary to what Wikipedia says, Godwin's law is when someone references Hitler to another person or group of people, something that has not been done in this thread. A mention of the name Hitler is NOT invoking Godwin's law.
Your history professor is lacking his geek skills then.
Your history professor is lacking his geek skills then.
Well he has a pretty good history of international debates...
Don't think it matters anyway, as long as it is not misused. In a discussion on Hitler for instance, should everyone leave after the first post? There is a time and place for everything, and as long as it is not misused or used for the sake of using, a mention of Hitler means nothing bad to a discussion.
Well you mention Hitler way too many times Vuk. It's like your Argument-card if you want to prove your right. But in fact it kills your argument, because of credibility. Word of advice, leave Hitler out of your arguments, whether it is gun controll, torture, gay marriage or abortion.
And a month ago you didn't even know about Godwins law. Now your acting like you talked about it with the real pros on Hitler.
Tristuskhan
05-17-2009, 12:29
Embryos do NOT need to be killed in this process. It can be done with no loss to human life.
:candle: How? Enlighten us please, do you want to keep them frozen until then end of times?
Well you mention Hitler way too many times Vuk. It's like your Argument-card if you want to prove your right. But in fact it kills your argument, because of credibility. Word of advice, leave Hitler out of your arguments, whether it is gun controll, torture, gay marriage or abortion.
And a month ago you didn't even know about Godwins law. Now your acting like you talked about it with the real pros on Hitler.
Not really at all Fixiwee. I have mentioned him in three threads in 6 months, and everytime when it very appropriate. As for Godwin's law, you are right, I did not know about it a month ago, but when I learned about it, I read up on it. What is your point?
:candle: How? Enlighten us please, do you want to keep them frozen until then end of times?
By using a single egg.
A woman's body belongs to her and no one else. What she does with it is no one's business but her own. No one may touch her or interfere with her bodily functions without her consent.
Period.
Any law passed that transgresses upon a woman's body had best be crafted with extraordinary care and refer only to the most exacting of circumstances and even then it is a law that clings to the ledge of admissibility only by the barest micron of its fingertips. Naught but the gentlest tremor is enough to send it hurtling into the precipice where it should rightfully be destroyed and left to rot on the rocks below.
A woman's body belongs to her and no one else. What she does with it is no one's business but her own. No one may touch her or interfere with her bodily functions without her consent.
Period.
Any law passed that transgresses upon a woman's body had best be crafted with extraordinary care and refer only to the most exacting of circumstances and even then it is a law that clings to the ledge of admissibility only by the barest micron of its fingertips. Naught but the gentlest tremor is enough to send it hurtling into the precipice where it should rightfully be destroyed and left to rot on the rocks below.
Nice rhetoric Beirut, but why say a woman's? Does the same go for a man's? If so, then is it a human beings right? Then does not the baby have the same right? You know what? If a woman does not want to have a baby, she does not have to take the steps to make one, but when she does that, it is her child and she cannot kill it. If she can have the baby killed as it comes out of her womb, why not afterward? Why not wait 5 years and decided that you do not want it and smash its head to pieces on a rock?
Or in other words Beirut, does someone have the right to control their body to infringe on another's rights? Can I control my body to pick up a gun and shoot my drrned ugly neighbor because I don't like him? Sure, we have the right to control over our bodies, as long as it is not infringing on someone else's rights.
Tristuskhan
05-17-2009, 14:07
By using a single egg.
Wrong answer, a good part of in-vitro conception is done to avoid the transmission of genetic diseases, ie Marfan, an example I know well since my wife has Marfan (50% chance of transmission to the offspring). There must be more than one embryo if you want to make sure to have one good egg.
Wrong answer, a good part of in-vitro conception is done to avoid the transmission of genetic diseases, ie Marfan, an example I know well since my wife has Marfan (50% chance of transmission to the offspring). There must be more than one embryo if you want to make sure to have one good egg.
I know that I have been critized for bringing Hitler up in the past, but come on Trist. That sounds like it came right out of Hitler's mouth. Kill thousands and leave only the perfect race. Sorry, but that is what you are saying in effect. Kill thousands of human beings to find one that you think will be without blemish. All human beings are equal, and someone is not less of a human or deserving to die because they are born with a disease. It should freak you out when your ethics for life sound like they come directly out of Hitler's playbook!
(whine about Godwin all you like, but what else is calling the murder of thousands of human beings exceptable so that we can find one human being who is perfect?)
Tristuskhan
05-17-2009, 14:39
I know that I have been critized for bringing Hitler up in the past, but come on Trist. That sounds like it came right out of Hitler's mouth. Kill thousands and leave only the perfect race. Sorry, but that is what you are saying in effect. Kill thousands of human beings to find one that you think will be without blemish. All human beings are equal, and someone is not less of a human or deserving to die because they are born with a disease. It should freak you out when your ethics for life sound like they come directly out of Hitler's playbook!
(whine about Godwin all you like, but what else is calling the murder of thousands of human beings exceptable so that we can find one human being who is perfect?)
Bla bla bla. We have a 50% chance to have a heavily disabled child , and a 33% chance for our lives to become some form of daily hell, and you'd like us to give up our chance to avoid it? You're mad my friend. If you want to take care of a blind, giant, cardiac child, just do it, that's your choice. I won't. And don't try to prevent me from doing it, it would be bad for your health, really.
My wife has a quite beningn form of Marfan (very bad eyes, weak heart and 6ft4 height), but just google "marfan" and look at the pictures. You'll like it. Gorgeous.
Moreover, if you want to gamble your life taking the risk of having to breed an heavily disabled child, you must have strong theoric reasons to do it. Likely religious ones, I suppose. I have strong theoric reasons to be pro-abortion and pro-selection: it's much better to live a healthy life than to be born only in order to experience a long and painful way to death. Treat me an Hitler or whatever you want, I don't mind. I see no reason to take the risk if science can prevent it. If you'd like to, it's up to you. That's the difference between me and Hitler: I won't try to prevent anyone to behive like he or she wants to have a crappy life. It's up to everyone's choice.
All human beeings are equal? Are you kidding? Do you just know about the life of a trisomic (just an example)? Does he or she have equal opportunities in life than an ordinary child?
Edit: I'm with Beirut on this one, the decision belongs to the woman, fullpoint. We men are very very pretentious just trying to interfere on the subject.
Bla bla bla. We have a 50% chance to have a heavily disabled child , and a 33% chance for our lives to become some form of daily hell, and you'd like us to give up our chance to avoid it? You're mad my friend. If you want to take care of a blind, giant, cardiac child, just do it, that's your choice. I won't. And don't try to prevent me from doing it, it would be bad for your health, really.
My wife has a quite beningn form of Marfan (very bad eyes, weak heart and 6ft4 height), but just google "marfan" and look at the pictures. You'll like it. Gorgeous.
Moreover, if you want to gamble your life taking the risk of having to breed an heavily disabled child, you must have strong theoric reasons to do it. Likely religious ones, I suppose. I have strong theoric reasons to be pro-abortion and pro-selection: it's much better to live a healthy life than to be born only in order to experience a long and painful way to death. Treat me an Hitler or whatever you want, I don't mind. I see no reason to take the risk if science can prevent it. If you'd like to, it's up to you. That's the difference between me and Hitler: I won't try to prevent anyone to behive like he or she wants to have a crappy life. It's up to everyone's choice.
All human beeings are equal? Are you kidding? Do you just know about the life of a trisomic (just an example)? Does he or she have equal opportunities in life than an ordinary child?
Edit: I'm with Beirut on this one, the decision belongs to the woman, fullpoint. We men are very very pretentious just trying to interfere on the subject.
Human life is everyone's concern, not just women's. The child is a human being and the responsibility of both parents.
Right, it is better to kill the child than raise a child with a condition? Sorry Tris, but that speaks loads about you.
EDIT: Suppose I have a baby made in the lab that I think will be healthy, and it comes out with a bunch of defects, would it be alright by the same reasoning for me to just say, 'sorry hun', and smash its brains all over the bed post and try again?
Tristuskhan
05-17-2009, 16:06
Human life is everyone's concern, not just women's. The child is a human being and the responsibility of both parents.
Oh really, a woman's belly is "everyone's concern"? And you treat me a totalitarian?
Right, it is better to kill the child than raise a child with a condition? Sorry Tris, but that speaks loads about you.
No, it's just better not to give bith to someone who will suffer all his (short) life. Or you'll have to tell me why.
EDIT: Suppose I have a baby made in the lab that I think will be healthy, and it comes out with a bunch of defects, would it be alright by the same reasoning for me to just say, 'sorry hun', and smash its brains all over the bed post and try again?
You're going too far, boy. Really, "smash his brain all over the bed's post"? And it's not the first time you use such sentences. Grow up, please, insulting others only kills the debate.
Meneldil
05-17-2009, 16:14
Right, it is better to kill the child than raise a child with a condition? Sorry Tris, but that speaks loads about you.
The fact you're seemingly willing to raise a kid with a heavy handicap either
- means that you've never seen an handicaped person in your life, don't know what difficulties they face throughout their life (in the rare case they can live a somewhat normal life and don't end up stuck in a chair or a bed, that strongly depends on the handicap itself), and thus, have no clue about what you're arguing for
or
- speaks load about you and the christian doctrine. People who are willing to let other people live hell just to respect outdated religious teachings and feel good are monsters*.
(*Note that I use the word monster only because you've been using words like "Hitler", "Stalin", "murder" and "killing" half a hundred times already. I thought some balance in the outrage is only fair)
Vuk, Tristuskhan just told us about the condition of his wife which is something very, very personal. You could at least show some respect for the man's feelings and chose your words a bit more carefully.
No matter what your opinion on abortion, you should know when to back off because now you're undoubtedly hurting Tristuskhan's personal feelings.
It's not like they chose it to be this way, now is it? It's easy to discuss abortion in abstracto, when you're standing on the sideline, it's something completely different when you are actually confronted with circumstances that force you to consider the assistance of science to make children.
I mean, really, what do you want Tristuskhan to do? Have no sex? Accept and have no children? Do you know how hard that is?
Should he divorce his wife and take another one without a condition?
Are you going to take care of the disabled children they're bound to procreate if they don't use the assistance of science?
And lastly, who are you to judge?
I'm not saying you have to agree with his choices, but please, be a bit more sensitive when posting.
Rhyfelwyr
05-17-2009, 16:19
I think the vast majority of disabled people are happy to be alive, and their consenting about euthasia is a whole other issue besides this one, which is concerned with where life begins.
Banquo's Ghost
05-17-2009, 16:30
Tempers are beginning to fray, and rather unpleasant characterisations are being bandied about.
Time for the thread to have a long nap.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.