Bye Bye Roe v. Wade

[RakuraiTenjin]

Overturning Roe v. Wade won't make abortion illegal. It just means the states can make it illegal if they so please.

You'll see more conservative states make it illegal, of course, but don't worry, you're not going to have to worry about Massachusetts, California, etc etc from enacting laws on it.

 

[Yuri]

Nat Turner, thank you for saying something with law behind it in this thread. I want to hug you and your logical thinking.

It should be a state issue, not a federal one.

Now, before all the naysayers start coming in here whining about Alito somebody should do some research. Alito is for precedent and the right to privacy. Do any of you have any idea what that means? In other words, this entire thread is pointless. Funny how only one person points this out. I want to hug you too, Erestheux.

*huggles* <3 Still, a lot of people are worried about it... even though it is questionable.

When Kennedy wrote his supporting opinion in Laurence v. Texas he pretty much spelled out the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade did nothing but confirm this. It won't be overturned. First off a new abortion cass must reach the Supreme Court (which is a lengthy process) while at the same time someone must prove that abortions harm them. Again, hard to do. And then your going to have to convice the justices of that, which will be harder then many of you seem to think. Once appointed as a Justice politics do not have as much affect on a Justice, afterall, they don't have to run again. And Alito has already stated that he respects privacy and precedent. I don't really expect Roe v. Wade to change, especially if the majority of Americans are against it. Unless of course they decided to go the same that Brown v. Board did and just flat out tell the general public they are wrong.

Well, hopefully you are right. A lengthy process as it may be, it will happen sometime.

Question: Whats the point of contraceptives? Why bother with pills that change hormones or condoms? Doesn't the natural way feel 'better'? Afterall, she can just "abort" the baby if she gets pregnant. Something I have always wondered.

Beh? Do you know how much it costs to get an abortion? At least $600 for just the pill. How much emotional damage it does to most people? What about STDs? I don't think too many want abortions. It's just a last-ditch effort...

As far as parental notification is concerned, I still don't understand the reasoning behind it not being passed. To protect a girl in a abusive family is what I am told. But seeing as how most teenage girls get pregnant through their own stupidity I don't really see that as a plausible justification. I'm sorry, but what parent wouldn't want to know if their daughter (who is a minor) got pregnant? If we follow the logic of it being the daughter's right then we should dismiss the idea of minors all together and treat them as adults in court and other aspects of life. Obviously if they are capable of getting pregnant then choosing to 'abort' their baby (babies are kind of like computer processess now) then they should be expected to be treated like an adult.

That last sentence doesn't go with the rest of your post...

 

[Pajari]

I don't know about you but I've known quite a few kids who have had abortions. Some were because of stupidity and others because there were mistakes made. Should they not be allowed to say what they want to do with their own body? Should the female be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want?

A female shouldn't be forced to do anything, but if she makes the choice to have sex, then its not about being forced to do something, its about dodging responsibility. Of course, the man has a responsibility to support the child and the mother, because he made the choice too. Stupidity is no excuse for an abortion. In fact, that's exactly the problem with society from top to bottom; accountability is no longer relevant.

And, to be quite honest, if you really, really, really have a problem with a child, there are orphanages all over the place.

Just because your personal ideology says it's wrong doesn't mean that it should be forced on others.

Exactly. Who's going to ask the baby if they apprecieate the fact that they're going to be aborted because their mother doesn't want a baby or they don't think that the baby has a chance? That sounds like enforcing ideology on someone in a pretty extreme way.

Of course, if its what's best for the country (keeping crime rates low, etc), then I really don't have a reason to oppose it other than a moral one (doesn't count on this forum, apparently), and I suppose that the person getting an abortion has to live with the fact that they denied another human being even the merest chance to experience life. Ideally, that'd be enough.

EDIT: To discuss roe v. wade: judicial activisim in one of its more extreme examples. It should be overturned purely on constitutional grounds, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with such a personal issue, although I admit it'd be interesting to see the court attempt to justify their ruling on the basis of the federal government's responsibility to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Exactly. It is an infringement on state's rights, legally. There is no guarantee to personal privacy, as is often the arguement by people, in the constitution.


Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[MiccyNarc]

40 + million babies dead in one of the greatest slaughters in human history.
The justification? They aren't human, they are just blobs of tissue, etc.

How has genocide been justified throughout the centuries? By dehumanizing the victims.

which will lead to coathanger abortions performed in back alleys in some states, and sterile safe abortion in others

So then let's make murder legal because since it still happens anyway.
Some twisted logic you have there stern.

 

[Pajari]

Exactly. It is an infringement on state's rights, legally. There is no guarantee to personal privacy, as is often the arguement by people, in the constitution.


Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yeah. I'm more concerned about actual rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (2nd amendment anyone?) that are being stomped on than I am concerned about implied rights that are exploited, twisted, and applied to things far larger than they should be, and may have never even existed in the first place.

 

[bryanf445]

I don't know about you but I've known quite a few kids who have had abortions. Some were because of stupidity and others because there were mistakes made. Should they not be allowed to say what they want to do with their own body? Should the female be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want?

Just because your personal ideology says it's wrong doesn't mean that it should be forced on others. People should always have the OPTION of having one done if they feel they want one. No one is forcing you or your loved ones to have an abortion.

Ok well I wasnt saying I was criticizing anyone who is pro-life, or anyone for the fact of the matter that actually went through an abortion. In my opinon I feel human life is more important then some "mistake". Theres always adoption. If you see some of the videos of abortion they will have an impact on you somehow...

but as for anyone elses opinon, thats fine with me i dont like to argue about something that is strictly based on opinons

 

[satch919]

A female shouldn't be forced to do anything, but if she makes the choice to have sex, then its not about being forced to do something, its about dodging responsibility. Of course, the man has a responsibility to support the child and the mother, because he made the choice too. Stupidity is no excuse for an abortion. In fact, that's exactly the problem with society from top to bottom; accountability is no longer relevant.

And, to be quite honest, if you really, really, really have a problem with a child, there are orphanages all over the place.

Stupidity exists on a large scale. You should know that. When people are young, they do stupid things. Would you want an equally stupid couple raising a child that they don't care for? I wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair for that child to have to go through that kind of life.

No one here is "PRO-ABORTION". I'm just PRO-CHOICE. People should put their baby up for adoption if they don't want to go through an abortion. However, if the woman doesn't want to go through the birth process because she's not mentally ready for it, then it should be her choice not to go through with letting that embryo grow inside her. Even with adoption programs and such, people still dump their babies in dumpsters or kill them right after they're born. I'd rather have the embryo medically neutralized than to have a full grown baby be brutally murdered or tossed aside like trash.

There's way more to be said from a sociological perspective as well.

Exactly. Who's going to ask the baby if they apprecieate the fact that they're going to be aborted because their mother doesn't want a baby or they don't think that the baby has a chance? That sounds like enforcing ideology on someone in a pretty extreme way.

The fetus isn't going to be answering you back if you ask it for it's opinion. Since the fetus lacks the position and intelligence to make it's own case, the parent must assume control of it and make that decision. The mother isn't going to have an abortion just because she's a pro-choice person, more often than not she'll be having an abortion because she knows she wouldn't be able to give her child the life that they deserve.

 

[Top Secret]

it's the parents CHOICE not the states ..and in your case that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about because that wasnt a physical deformity where a doctor would suggest an abortion

Ugh. Once again, please learn how our government works. If it's not stated in the constitution, it's a states issue. I'm 110% for Pro-Choice. But this isn't technically something the Federal government should be deciding. If there were an amendment proposal, hell yeah. That'd be sweet. Cause THEN it would be consitutional. I agree, it should be the parents choice. But even if R v W is overturned, abortions will still be available, just not everywhere. Once states grow to realise that having zero abortions is stupid, everything will be set straight. Until then, the Christians take this battle.

 

[Yuri]

You people with your "genocide" ranting. Who are you to determine when life begins?

I'm against abortion after the first three months. Why? Because it should not ever, ever be done unless the person is completely absolutely sure that it is neccesary. Why it is neccesary is no one's opinion besides the woman's. If you need time to "think" about it, though, then it should not ever be done.

There's my opinion. Feel free to tell me that I'm either right or a terrible inhumane bastard. Truth is, I don't give a shit.

Ugh. Once again, please learn how our government works. If it's not stated in the constitution, it's a states issue. I'm 110% for Pro-Choice. But this isn't technically something the Federal government should be deciding. If there were an amendment proposal, hell yeah. That'd be sweet. Cause THEN it would be consitutional. I agree, it should be the parents choice. But even if R v W is overturned, abortions will still be available, just not everywhere. Once states grow to realise that having zero abortions is stupid, everything will be set straight. Until then, the Christians take this battle.

That amendment will never happen.

And who is to say that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there wouldn't be an opposite amendment proposed later on?

 

[Cooper]

Beh? Do you know how much it costs to get an abortion? At least $600 for just the pill. How much emotional damage it does to most people? What about STDs? I don't think too many want abortions. It's just a last-ditch effort...

Your right, I didn't take into account STDs. I had forgotten about them.

But you see, you mentioned what I wanted you to mention. The emotional damage part and last-ditch effort. As others have said abortions are supposed to be mentally or emtionally scaring to some people. But I submit that if we allow abortions (as in, abortions for any reason) then eventually this will not be the case. Once abortions are cheaper, routine, and abortion pills are less expensive then it no longer becomes a big deal. It becomes common practice. This is essentially what the American people are saying towards future generations. Sure, some rationalize it by commenting on the mothers health, medical and logical reasons. But in the future, who is to say that abortion doesn't just become another form of birth control, no longer a last-ditch effort but a "weekly body maintenance" practiced by most sexually active couples? Somewhat similar to dusting your house.

I have no problem with abortions if the womans health is in danger. I just am afraid of this mentality that people are no longer responsible for their actions.

 

[Pajari]

Stupidity exists on a large scale. You should know that. When people are young, they do stupid things. Would you want an equally stupid couple raising a child that they don't care for? I wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair for that child to have to go through that kind of life.

Well, would it be fair for the child to not have a life at all? I'm not making the argument that a crappy childhood is a good thing, I'm saying its all relative. And people are extremely, stupid, yes. That wasn't a valid excuse in the other posts in this thread and its still not a valid excuse now. People are extremely stupid with money, too. Does that mean we should give them free handouts whenever they spend too much?

No one here is "PRO-ABORTION". I'm just PRO-CHOICE. People should put their baby up for adoption if they don't want to go through an abortion. However, if the woman doesn't want to go through the birth process because she's not mentally ready for it, then it should be her choice not to go through with letting that embryo grow inside her. Even with adoption programs and such, people still dump their babies in dumpsters or kill them right after they're born. I'd rather have the embryo medically neutralized than to have a full grown baby be brutally murdered or tossed aside like trash.

Well, what's the functional difference between tossing a baby in the trash and aborting it before it leaves the womb? The baby is equally dead in both situations.

And as for not being 'mentally ready', that's a load of horse manure. Your other points were far more solid than this one. Wether or not the mother is prepared to handle the 'stress' of a new life to take care of pales in comparison to the harsh reality that she must be ready to shoulder the responsibility. The baby's well-being is far more important than her personal comfort.

The fetus isn't going to be answering you back if you ask it for it's opinion. Since the fetus lacks the position and intelligence to make it's own case, the parent must assume control of it and make that decision. The mother isn't going to have an abortion just because she's a pro-choice person, more often than not she'll be having an abortion because she knows she wouldn't be able to give her child the life that they deserve.

I'll agree that being pro-choice doesn't automatically mean you abort every fetus within reach. But if the mother can't support a child, then the basic fact is that she should have taken precautions (the pill, not having sex, etc.) beforehand. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but it has to happen.

Also, its quite obvious that the fetus isnt going to be answering back, and its equally obvious that it doesn't have the intelligence to make its own case. There are lots of people (the very old, very young, and the developmentally challenged) that can't make the case either, and we don't get rid of them because of it. I don't think the mother should have the power of death over a life that isn't hers. Its not about 'choice' or 'being mentally prepared', its about the baby. The child should come first in the equation.

EDIT: Dammit I'm frequenting this forum. Did they clean it up and ban people or something?

 

[gick]

I disagree with those who say that life begins at the moment of conception. However after a certain point (eg when the foetus can survive outside the womb) then it becomes its own life, and not an extension of the mother's body. It is at this point that abortion becomes murder.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

40 + million babies dead in one of the greatest slaughters in human history.
The justification? They aren't human, they are just blobs of tissue, etc.

How has genocide been justified throughout the centuries? By dehumanizing the victims.

So then let's make murder legal because since it still happens anyway.
Some twisted logic you have there stern.

Actually, Stern's logic makes plenty of sense, because he is not presupposing "murder" and "genocide" irrationally.

Also, it's difficult to make a case for dehumanization when the human in question is literally not a human.

Since the "baby" can't survive on its own and it has no brain for the first while, and then no cognitive functions for a long while after that, factually speaking, it's more an organ inside the the mother than it is an individual human.

Think "I think, therefore I am", and all that.

Which is to say, scientifically, a medical procedure involving a fetus is not comparable to say, a jew gassed in the holocaust.
That's just a melodramatic appeal to emotion, and frankly serves more as shock value than it does as an accurate analogy.

Try reasoning your argument using valid scientific arguments and without invoking Hitler's ghost outright. The results may surprise you.

What it come down to is that your heartfelt insistence that a "blob of tissue" is a full-fledged human being, right after conception, is tantamount to a religious belief and therefore not enforcable by law in our secular society, regardless of how strongly held that belief is.

On top of that fact, it's a sad reality that there are a great many cases in our society where a birth is not a positive thing. It may be difficult, but please consider it from the point of view of someone who is not as well off as yourself. It is for that reason that a demand for this choice exists in the first place. There really isn't any better alternative to it.
certainly not an absolutist ban, to say the least.

Stern is not using a "it happens so deal" excuse. Rather, he is pointing out that legalized abortion is a safer alternative to covert abortions.
It's the same argument as the fact that legalized alcohol is superior to prohibition.
By legalizing abortion, you can regulate it in such a way as to make it safer and to prevent it from being used carelessly.

With all this talk about blobs of tissue with no mention of the person attached to them for nine months, I would argue that it is the woman who is dehumanized.

 

[CptStern]

thanks Mecha, I tire of this issue because it's such an emotional issue yet no one ever seems to have any consideration for the mother ...this is is what's wrong with politics in general ..people spend way too much time expousing what THEY feel is right (regardless of whether or not it's actually factual, regardless if it's based on nothing more than gut instinct) instead of tailoring what's "right" or what's "best" to suit each individual case

 

[Sulkdodds]

Consider this as well: you may say "you can't just decide whether a baby should live or not. They might/will grow into a fully fledged human being who would rather not be dead thankyerveramuch. You're killing someone before they're even born, like the Terminator killing Sarah Connor so John never happens, and nobody should have the right to do that simply because they don't feel they can bear the burden of their own stupidity or short-sightedness." And I can see what you're saying, and Cooper is right - it must not become a routine contraception method.

But think. Take it to its logical extreme. If killing a fetus before it's technically human is murder of an as-yet unborn child...where do you draw the line?

Taking the morning-after pill is murder. The woman is effectively killing any chance her offspring-to-be have of existence.

Wearing a condom is murder. All those poor, poor sperm are denied the chance to ever live. You're killing the babies before they're even born. Hell, you could argue that simply by having sex you're committing genocide as only one sperm is every going to make it.

Masturbation is murder; like pulling the baby out of the mother and throwing it out of the window into the canal with no care to what might have been.

When you don't wank for a while and you have a wet dream, you've just committed manslaughter.

Oh, and every time you get an erection and don't have sex, that's murder too (actually, I wouldn't mind adopting that philosphy right there).

These are ridiculous points. But what I'm saying is that you can't decide where the line between killing an unborn baby and not killing an unborn baby is drawn - because it can just as easily be drawn in all of those places I just mentioned.

Stern is not using a "it happens so deal" excuse. Rather, he is pointing out that legalized abortion is a safer alternative to covert abortions.
It's the same argument as the fact that legalized alcohol is superior to prohibition.

And the same argument as with legalised guns.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Think of the child in the womb as a human on life support.

Since the "baby" can't survive on its own and it has no brain for the first while, and then no cognitive functions for a long while after that, factually speaking, it's more an organ inside the the mother than it is an individual human.
Think "I think, therefore I am", and all that.

At what stage does the baby become aware of its surroundings? Do we even know when?

right after conception

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

On top of that fact, it's a sad reality that there are a great many cases in our society where a birth is not a positive thing. It may be difficult, but please consider it from the point of view of someone who is not as well off as yourself. It is for that reason that a demand for this choice exists in the first place. There really isn't any better alternative to it.
certainly not an absolutist ban, to say the least.

Heh, if the woman can't deal with having a child, she shouldn't be having sex.
Anyway, if someone can't take care of her child, adoption is a much better alternative. There are millions of people who want that baby.

yet no one ever seems to have any consideration for the mother

It is a fact that many women who have abortions end up suffering from guilt and emotional baggage for the rest of their lives.

And while this is highly debateable, I feel I should throw it out anyway:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

 

[Sulkdodds]

It is a fact that many women who have abortions end up suffering from guilt and emotional baggage for the rest of their lives.

I'd assume that's because they're in a pretty ****ed-up situation already, or otherwise because it's their own sense of morals that objects to abortion. That doesn't mean abortion's intrinsically bad, does it? Just as it doesn't mean divorce is intrinsically bad even though many people do get a bit emotional after it happens.

I'm still interested to know where exactly you draw the line between human being and pre-human. Because if you take certain ideas to their logical extremes you should be crying yourself to sleep every time you have a wank.

 

[CptStern]

At what stage does the baby become aware of its surroundings? Do we even know when?

yes we do ..and it doesnt ..my son was born 3 months premature ..his eyes didnt open till he reached full term

Heh, if the woman can't deal with having a child, she shouldn't be having sex.

yes because there's no such thing as a person having complications and the pregnancy ends up being terminated

Anyway, if someone can't take care of her child, adoption is a much better alternative. There are millions of people who want that baby.

yes because you know this from experience, you know first hand how hard it is to raise a child even in a loving long term stable relationship, you know how easy it is to go through 9 months of pregnancy only to give it up after 12 hours of labour ..seeing as how you have a penis you cant even pretend to know these things

It is a fact that many women who have abortions end up suffering from guilt and emotional baggage for the rest of their lives.

as if you have any idea what it is to make that sort of decision. You're just insulting all those mothers who had no choice but to terminate their pregnancy

And while this is highly debateable, I feel I should throw it out anyway:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

people like that need a collective kick in the nuts or better still all those mothers who had their pregnancies terminated due to health reasons should give them a kick in the nuts ...moralizing half-wits who care more about their personal opinion than anyones well being

 

[MiccyNarc]

I'd assume that's because they're in a pretty ****ed-up situation already, or otherwise because it's their own sense of morals that objects to abortion. That doesn't mean abortion's intrinsically bad, does it? Just as it doesn't mean divorce is intrinsically bad even though many people do get a bit emotional after it happens.

My point that it still damages emotionally still stands.
What if the woman had the baby and then put it up for adoption?

I'm still interested to know where exactly you draw the line between human being and pre-human

I'd say when the heart starts beating (~25 days). I would use brain function but again, I don't believe we even know when the brain begins to function.

Because if you take certain ideas to their logical extremes you should be crying yourself to sleep every time you have a wank.

I do, but it's for entirely different reasons.

yes we do ..and it doesnt ..my son was born 3 months premature ..his eyes didnt open till he reached full term

Blind people aren't aware of their surroundings?

yes because you know this from experience, you know first hand how hard it is to raise a child even in a loving long term stable relationship, you know how easy it is to go through 9 months of pregnancy only to give it up after 12 hours of labour ..seeing as how you have a penis you cant even pretend to know these things

As if I were limiting this to my own experience. I know plenty of females, Stern. I was raised by one.
On top of that, she is very pro-life, and has been active in the pro-life movement for over 10 years now.

as if you have any idea what it is to make that sort of decision. You're just insulting all those mothers who had no choice but to terminate their pregnancy

Something tells me you've never researched this. It's a fact that these women suffer from guilt for the rest of their lives. It's called "Google", use it.

people like that need a collective kick in the nuts or better still all those mothers who had their pregnancies terminated due to health reasons should give them a kick in the nuts ...moralizing half-wits who care more about their personal opinion than anyones well being

<5% of abortions are because of hard cases (rape, health, etc.).
What about the rest? Why risk cancer for the "convenience" of not having a baby?

You sound awfully bitter, Stern.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I do, but it's for entirely different reasons.

Haha.
Thing is, I'm pretty sure you'd get a bit of emotional damage from giving up a baby to adoption - especially since it could come back later to bite you in the arse, so to speak. In most cases, having an abortion is the lesser of two evils in terms of emotional damage inflicted on the mother even if nothing else. Not to mention the 9 months pregnancy...

"When the heart starts beating" is just as arbitrary a line to draw as any other, isn't it?

Of course, there's this.

A 1998 study aggregated data from studies in 27 countries on the reasons women seek to terminate their pregnancies. It concluded that common factors cited to have influenced the abortion decision were the desire to delay or end childbearing, concern over the interruption of work or education, issues of financial or relationship stability, and perceived immaturity.

That just doesn't seem quite right. If it's stuff like that then why not just use contraception from the very beginning?

EDIT: As an aside, I just don't get this American thing about independence of states. You are one country, right? Wasn't the independence of state thing always just to appease the rebellious states which didn't join the union?

 

[CptStern]

Blind people aren't aware of their surroundings?

:upstare: have you ever even seen a newborn? held it? cared for it's every need? you cant possibly compare a blind person (who's had years to work through his disability) to a new born baby who cant even lift it's own head

As if I were limiting this to my own experience. I know plenty of females, Stern. I was raised by one.
On top of that, she is very pro-life, and has been active in the pro-life movement for over 10 years now.

so that makes you an expert? because you KNOW feamles? that's not seriously your answer? did your mother have an abortion? have all the females you know have an abortion? iff the answer is no then their opinion is completely meaningless

Something tells me you've never researched this. It's a fact that these women suffer from guilt for the rest of their lives. It's called "Google", use it.

and what does that have to do with all the parents who have to terminate their babies life due to medical reasons? wil you or any of your pro-life cronies tell a mother who had to make that decision your opinions to her face? It's easy to shoot your mouth off when it doesnt affect you in the least ..faced with that decision I bet not a single person here could give a definative answer ..and if they did they're lying

<5% of abortions are because of hard cases (rape, health, etc.).
What about the rest?

the numbers are immaterial because the risk is still there, no matter what the numbers are ..if you're willing to sentence people to death just to placate your sense of morality then you really need to re-examine your morals

who will comfort the mother who has a still birth sometime in 2nd or 3rd trimester? you? who will help bury the mother when she dies from giving birth to a still born baby? you? who will help raise a child who is severly handicapped because of genetic quirks? you? will you shell out $10,000-30,000 a month for healthcare? you? or your pro-"life" groups?

Why risk cancer for the "convenience" of not having a baby?

why risk needless deaths and unsanitary abortions just because a few people feel morally superior?

You sound awfully bitter, Stern.

you think? put 2 and 2 together, that might give you an answer

 

[MiccyNarc]

have you ever even seen a newborn? held it?

Yes.

you cant possibly compare a blind person (who's had years to work through his disability) to a new born baby who cant even lift it's own head

Wait, so since it can't even lift it's own head, we can kill it?

so that makes you an expert? because you KNOW feamles? that's not seriously your answer? did your mother have an abortion? have all the females you know have an abortion? iff the answer is no then their opinion is completely meaningless

Bah, there's no point in debating this part as you're clearly not thinking straight.

Now where do you get the idea that I have an issue with abortion when the life of the mother is at stake? I know of no pro-lifers who have an issue with abortion when the mother's life is at stake.

who will help raise a child who is severly handicapped because of genetic quirks? you? will you shell out $10,000-30,000 a month for healthcare? you? or your pro-"life" groups?

There are many groups that exist solely to support the handicapped. And there are people out there who would adopt a child even though it is handicapped.

why risk needless deaths and unsanitary abortions just because a few people feel morally superior?

It's not about "moral superiority", it's about a human life.

you think? put 2 and 2 together, that might give you an answer

I assumed as much.

 

[CptStern]

Yes.

so holding someone else's baby for what ..a few minutes? entitles to you on an opinion on how to raise a child? My wife and I have been together for 10 years, we're married have good jobs and both come from a background in education (my wife is a behavioural therapist for children) ..and even we were stretched to the max on many occasions ...are you saying that a 15 year old teenager with no job/money/support/maturity/prospects will be just as capable?

Wait, so since it can't even lift it's own head, we can kill it?

stop twisting words ..the point is that at birth a baby is NOT aware of it's surroundings

Bah, there's no point in debating this part as you're clearly not thinking straight.

just answer the damn question. What experience do these people have that they can give ANY insight on what it is to decide the fate of your baby?

Now where do you get the idea that I have an issue with abortion when the life of the mother is at stake? I know of no pro-lifers who have an issue with abortion when the mother's life is at stake.

well you obviously dont understand the issues because not all termination are due to specific health risks to the mother ..often the case is that the baby will not survive birth but were you to take away the choice, these parents would have to bring their babies to FULL term regardless if they've died or not ..look up the meaning of Stillborn

There are many groups that exist solely to support the handicapped. And there are people out there who would adopt a child even though it is handicapped.

are you kidding me? I worked as a direct care worker/educator for mentally handicapped children for 7 years ..I've seen parents both rich and not STRUGGLE to get the care their children need ...again WHO will pay the $10,000 - $30,000 a month it costs to care for even an autistic child never mind one who may be vegetative or severely handicapped (the goverment sure as **** wont help ..sure maybe for a few years they'll give you a percentage that amounts to about 20% of the care needed) ...and NO there is next to nobody who will adopt a severely handicapped baby ..most agencies wouldnt do it because of the financial and emotional stress lifelong care can bring

It's not about "moral superiority", it's about a human life.

yet the mother's choice is meaningless? she needs the state/morally smug to tell her what to do?

[/B]I assumed as much.

what the **** is that supposed to mean? Until you've walked in my shoes you have no ****ing clue what I went through

 

[Yuri]

Your right, I didn't take into account STDs. I had forgotten about them.

But you see, you mentioned what I wanted you to mention. The emotional damage part and last-ditch effort. As others have said abortions are supposed to be mentally or emtionally scaring to some people. But I submit that if we allow abortions (as in, abortions for any reason) then eventually this will not be the case. Once abortions are cheaper, routine, and abortion pills are less expensive then it no longer becomes a big deal. It becomes common practice. This is essentially what the American people are saying towards future generations. Sure, some rationalize it by commenting on the mothers health, medical and logical reasons. But in the future, who is to say that abortion doesn't just become another form of birth control, no longer a last-ditch effort but a "weekly body maintenance" practiced by most sexually active couples? Somewhat similar to dusting your house.

I have no problem with abortions if the womans health is in danger. I just am afraid of this mentality that people are no longer responsible for their actions.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it will ever come to that. The process to have an abortion isn't nearly simple enough for everybody to do it like 15 times a year. It's complicated, stressfull, expensive, drawn-out, and no sane person would really want to do it unless they were completely sure it was necessary. People will still use condoms, contraceptives, and birth control pills.

And you know what? I think most women wouldn't be morally objected to having an abortion, if assholes wouldn't be throwing in their faces that they are "murderers" and "evil." A lot of women might even be afraid for their lives, because fanatic lunatics kill innocent people over their opinionated, selfish ways.

That's not to say that if it was widely accepted, then people would just go off and do it all the time.

I disagree with those who say that life begins at the moment of conception. However after a certain point (eg when the foetus can survive outside the womb) then it becomes its own life, and not an extension of the mother's body. It is at this point that abortion becomes murder.

Yep, I pretty much agree with that completely, along with my post up above.





I don't pretend to know when life begins, like most of you are doing. So I draw the line on when the fetus is relying on its mother or not to survive outside the womb. I even draw the line before that, because the mother should absolutely know, be positively sure that she wants an abortion before having one.

 

[satch919]

Well, would it be fair for the child to not have a life at all? I'm not making the argument that a crappy childhood is a good thing, I'm saying its all relative. And people are extremely, stupid, yes. That wasn't a valid excuse in the other posts in this thread and its still not a valid excuse now. People are extremely stupid with money, too. Does that mean we should give them free handouts whenever they spend too much?

I think an unwanted life leads parents to neglect their children. Especially in the less well off communities. Society doesn't want that burden of having to raise some elses child. That's might be a harsh thing to say but it's true. Stupidity causes mistakes and we all have made significant mistakes in our lives. Why risk messing up a chid's life just because you screwed up. Does that mean you should be forced to have that child as punishment? If the option is there to learn from your mistake, then take that opportunity if you wish. A lot of our laws are enacted to help the less fortunate, including those that lack significant mental power.

Well, what's the functional difference between tossing a baby in the trash and aborting it before it leaves the womb? The baby is equally dead in both situations.

The baby thrown in the dumpster has developed in the womb into a baby. The fetus growning in the womb that's aborted is about 12 weeks or younger accounts for 88% of all abortions. Besides the brutality and neglect of tossing your newborn into a dumpster or murdering it is a bit different than going into a professional medical facility with mental and physical help available to the mother.

And as for not being 'mentally ready', that's a load of horse manure. Your other points were far more solid than this one. Wether or not the mother is prepared to handle the 'stress' of a new life to take care of pales in comparison to the harsh reality that she must be ready to shoulder the responsibility. The baby's well-being is far more important than her personal comfort.

So what you're saying is that she should be forced to give birth to that child even though she is mentally immature? That's partly the reasons why young kids engage in sex; they're immature and don't understand the consequences of their actions. There are reasons why teenagers, for the most part, don't become parents. It's because you're not ready for that responsibility, mentally. Personal comfort? You think getting an abortion is easy? That's something that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Some say they do it because they knew they were unable to provide for that child and they didn't want to go through pregnancy because of school, work, or social ridicule.

I'll agree that being pro-choice doesn't automatically mean you abort every fetus within reach. But if the mother can't support a child, then the basic fact is that she should have taken precautions (the pill, not having sex, etc.) beforehand. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but it has to happen.

But people don't take precautions, that's the whole point. They're to young and immature to handle the responsibilities of sex.

Also, its quite obvious that the fetus isnt going to be answering back, and its equally obvious that it doesn't have the intelligence to make its own case. There are lots of people (the very old, very young, and the developmentally challenged) that can't make the case either, and we don't get rid of them because of it.

We do make decisions for the very old, the young, and the developmentally challenged. They're incapable of taking care of themselves so we do what's best for them and take over. For example, if a child is neglected by his or her parents, the state takes over as the parent. This is the concept of "parens patriae". The family also is given say in whether or not to keep a vegetative person living or take them off of life support. The Schiavo case makes this point. Because of their state, their loved ones were forced to deal with it because they cared about the quality of life of that human being.

I don't think the mother should have the power of death over a life that isn't hers. The child should come first in the equation.

But that life that grows inside her develops because the female supplies it with nutrients, blood, food, warmth, etc. I think that gives her significant say over what she can do with her body and the organism living inside her. ITS HER BODY!

 

[Eg.]

I just wanna say, that in some classical civilzations, infanticide was accepted as a form of population control, via the parents

 

[Sulkdodds]

Talk about D:

And you know what? I think most women wouldn't be morally objected to having an abortion, if assholes wouldn't be throwing in their faces that they are "murderers" and "evil." A lot of women might even be afraid for their lives, because fanatic lunatics kill innocent people over their opinionated, selfish ways.

This was what I was trying to say earlier - that it's the stigma and the idea that abortion equates to murder that will cause emotional damage. If it's not considered a bad thing then it's not going to be a problem is it? Although note that's not to say we should have a throwaway attitude to it.

ITS HER BODY!

Up to a point, this is even true in a literal sense.

 

[Last One In]

I think an unwanted life leads parents to neglect their children. Especially in the less well off communities. Society doesn't want that burden of having to raise some elses child. That's might be a harsh thing to say but it's true. Stupidity causes mistakes and we all have made significant mistakes in our lives. Why risk messing up a chid's life just because you screwed up. Does that mean you should be forced to have that child as punishment? If the option is there to learn from your mistake, then take that opportunity if you wish. A lot of our laws are enacted to help the less fortunate, including those that lack significant mental power.




The baby thrown in the dumpster has developed in the womb into a baby. The fetus growning in the womb that's aborted is about 12 weeks or younger accounts for 88% of all abortions. Besides the brutality and neglect of tossing your newborn into a dumpster or murdering it is a bit different than going into a professional medical facility with mental and physical help available to the mother.
*Note nazi germany did the same things. First the unborn, then the elderly, then the "inferior".*


So what you're saying is that she should be forced to give birth to that child even though she is mentally immature? That's partly the reasons why young kids engage in sex; they're immature and don't understand the consequences of their actions. There are reasons why teenagers, for the most part, don't become parents. It's because you're not ready for that responsibility, mentally. Personal comfort? You think getting an abortion is easy? That's something that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Some say they do it because they knew they were unable to provide for that child and they didn't want to go through pregnancy because of school, work, or social ridicule.





But people don't take precautions, that's the whole point. They're to young and immature to handle the responsibilities of sex.



We do make decisions for the very old, the young, and the developmentally challenged. They're incapable of taking care of themselves so we do what's best for them and take over. For example, if a child is neglected by his or her parents, the state takes over as the parent. This is the concept of "parens patriae". The family also is given say in whether or not to keep a vegetative person living or take them off of life support. The Schiavo case makes this point. Because of their state, their loved ones were forced to deal with it because they cared about the quality of life of that human being.



But that life that grows inside her develops because the female supplies it with nutrients, blood, food, warmth, etc. I think that gives her significant say over what she can do with her body and the organism living inside her. ITS HER BODY!

And I suppose that people on life support should be put in the hands of another to decide whether they live or die. one day, \I might just go into a two week coma, but the first three days look bleak. Doc says it looks hopeless?. Shall we pull the plug Mr. Hospital administrator? he is using a bed that could occupy another patient who is willing to pay twice what it costs to take care of the coma dude. -administrator- Sure, pull the plug; his family won't notice because his life in the hands of someone who "cares". Hahahaha! *Patient wakes up just as his life slowly flees him, but by that time it is too late*

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's a completely different issue really.

 

[Last One In]

That's a completely different issue really.

That is the exact thing they're doing in holland and in austrilla. It is pretty much legal murder.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And I disagree with it to an extent. But we're talking about abortion...

 

[Last One In]

And I disagree with it to an extent. But we're talking about abortion...

What I'm saying is that both parties are helpless in the say of what happens with their life. Both have a chance at life, and that chance can either be snubbed out or carried through.

 

[Sulkdodds]

They're both helpless, and yes the issues share certain similarities. But with abortion, half the debate is over whether the baby is even human yet. Whereas with euthanasia it's about whether someone who's already undeniably human being 'put out of their misery' whether through the decision of themselves or of someone else close to them.

 

[Last One In]

They're both helpless, and yes the issues share certain similarities. But with abortion, half the debate is over whether the baby is even human yet. Whereas with euthanasia it's about whether someone who's already undeniably human being 'put out of their misery' whether through the decision of themselves or of someone else close to them.

Reguardless of the state of the person both have an opportunity for a full and meaningful life. We only get one chance at this life, and each and everyone of us should be grateful that we breath today. What right do any of us have to say to another "today is your day to die. Your burden cannot be tolerated so your life shall be extinguished."

 

[GhostBoi]

Reguardless of the state of the person both have an opportunity for a full and meaningful life. We only get one chance at this life, and each and everyone of us should be grateful that we breath today. What right do any of us have to say to another "today is your day to die. Your burden cannot be tolerated so your life shall be extinguished."

You can't say that a life is extinguished, when we aren't sure that there is even one there is a first place! Stop throwing the word "life" around if you cherish it so dearly!

 

[satch919]

And I suppose that people on life support should be put in the hands of another to decide whether they live or die. one day, \I might just go into a two week coma, but the first three days look bleak. Doc says it looks hopeless?. Shall we pull the plug Mr. Hospital administrator? he is using a bed that could occupy another patient who is willing to pay twice what it costs to take care of the coma dude. -administrator- Sure, pull the plug; his family won't notice because his life in the hands of someone who "cares". Hahahaha! *Patient wakes up just as his life slowly flees him, but by that time it is too late*

No, no. I'm not arguing that someone outside the family should make the decision, it should be a family decision. There are many more factors to just slipping into a coma. Even though you came out of the coma, would you still retain the mental state you were in before the coma? Besides, I don't think hospital administrators make that decision, the family is always consulted. This is a different situation from an abortion.

 

[Last One In]

You can't say that a life is extinguished, when we aren't sure that there is even one there is a first place! Stop throwing the word "life" around if you cherish it so dearly!

What else would you call it for crying out loud? Do adults look as they did as infants? Do the elderly look as they did when they were children? NO, they are just in a different stage of life. You've been so blinded by the media bullshit that you can't see the plain and obvious fact that from the moment of conception there is a living being GROWING within the womb of a woman. Sure it's dependent on the woman for nourishment, but it will still grow to be an individual and have a life of its own. I don't care how you view abortion but the fact is that when the procedure is done, that person no longer grows in the womb and is thus dead.

No, no. I'm not arguing that someone outside the family should make the decision, it should be a family decision. There are many more factors to just slipping into a coma. Even though you came out of the coma, would you still retain the mental state you were in before the coma? Besides, I don't think hospital administrators make that decision, the family is always consulted. This is a different situation from an abortion.

No, administrators don't make that decision, and I think the only situations in which the family makes the decision is in vegitative cases or new born cases. All others require consent of the patient. But in the case of new borns, who the **** gave the family the right to say whether or not a person lives?

 

[satch919]

No, administrators don't make that decision, and I think the only situations in which the family makes the decision is in vegitative cases or new born cases. All others require consent of the patient. But in the case of new borns, who the **** gave the family the right to say whether or not a person lives?

If you knew that administrators didn't make that decision, why would you even take the time to type out that comparison. It's not even valid.

We're not arguing about new borns, just abortion. When the fetus is obviously still in the womb.

 

[GhostBoi]

What else would you call it for crying out loud? Do adults look as they did as infants? Do the elderly look as they did when they were children? NO, they are just in a different stage of life. You've been so blinded by the media bullshit that you can't see the plain and obvious fact that from the moment of conception there is a living being GROWING within the womb of a woman. Sure it's dependent on the woman for nourishment, but it will still grow to be an individual and have a life of its own. I don't care how you view abortion but the fact is that when the procedure is done, that person no longer grows in the womb and is thus dead.

Of course its dead after the abortion, the arguement is about whether its alive before the abortion or not :dork: . You can say that sperm is just another "stage" of life if you want to. I say that once something can live in the outside world without needing the nutrients that are inside the mother, it is alive. Before that it is just another part of the women's body.

It's like bacteria when they seperate, there was obviously always the potential for a new bacteria to seperate off of the old one, but not until it actually can is it a new bacteria.