Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Absinthe]

I too was going to chime in on the rape exception, but I don't think there's much more that can be said. It should be clear that this is very inconsistent reasoning. Allowing abortions in cases of rape is essentially allowing what you perceive as murder.

Also, I am very sick and tired of these "stupid teenager" scenarios. Yes, some people do dumb things when it comes to sex. But you're just coloring your entire argument in exactly the wrong way. It's as if your concern has less to do with the life of the fetus and more to do with reprimanding dumb teens. The fetus is treated primarily as method of punishment under some bullshit idea of taking responsibility of your actions. Any moral rights it may or may not have are secondary.

That the supposed life of a fetus rests so heavily on the circumstance of conception should be considered both intellectually and morally warped.

 

[ríomhaire]

Fathers always get ignored in these debates
D:

 

[Gray Fox]

Fathers always get ignored in these debates
D:

I think there was a group of fathers that united and even went to court to demand rights in this scenario. The judge was sympathetic to their cause, and said he could understand their reasoning, but he could not give them their rights because it would be more harm then good. At least it was something along those lines.

I think they protested the fact the woman could decide if she could have an abortion, but a man could not. Even though he would as the father have to pay in part for the child if it was born. Even if he did not want it.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

In the case of rape, or if the mother's life is at stake, then yes, I support abortion.

 

[15357]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

In the case of rape, or if the mother's life is at stake, then yes, I support abortion.

Basically the main idea of the abortion laws here.

 

[The Monkey]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

So women should abstain from sex, one of the most vital parts of pleasure, just because they're afraid of having children? A child could destroy a person's life if it arrives at the wrong time.

 

[15357]

So women should abstain from sex, one of the most vital parts of pleasure, just because they're afraid of having children? A child could destroy a person's life if it arrives at the wrong time.

I'd imagine having an abortion every time you have sex would be another reason to abstain.

 

[Solaris]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

In the case of rape, or if the mother's life is at stake, then yes, I support abortion.

Why do you grant more value to a fetus than say a fly?

 

[Absinthe]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

In the case of rape, or if the mother's life is at stake, then yes, I support abortion.

Okay... This still doesn't make any sense. So we can kill the baby when the mother was raped or in danger, but otherwise no dice? So what is it considered when you have an abortion? Half-murder? Murder-lite? Because you people aren't treating zygotes or fetuses as equivalents to grown human beings, which is what your entire argument rests on.

It's either a person or it isn't. We don't have sub-people or some percentage value of how human you are. It's binary. You're either a person or you're not. If you grant exception to rape, you admit that these are not people. You can wail on and on about "potential", but the bottom line is that you do not consider it to be a person like you consider yourself to be. It has no moral rights until it realizes that potential.

Also, conception can still take place even with the use of protection. So what are you getting at? Punish and burden people over broken condoms, failed diaphragms, taking the pill too late? Do you seriously think that pushing another life onto these people is a wise choice? This is absolutely insane.

 

[MiccyNarc]

So women should abstain from sex, one of the most vital parts of pleasure, just because they're afraid of having children? A child could destroy a person's life if it arrives at the wrong time.

Did you miss the "or use protection"?

Why do you grant more value to a fetus than say a fly?

Because it's a hell of a lot more human than a fly.

Okay... This still doesn't make any sense. So we can kill the baby when the mother was raped or in danger, but otherwise no dice? So what is it considered when you have an abortion? Half-murder? Murder-lite? Because you people aren't treating zygotes or fetuses as equivalents to grown human beings, which is what your entire argument rests on.

Personally, I'd rather do away with abortion entirely unless the mother's life is at stake, in which case you're choosing between the life of the woman and the life of the baby. Then the decision should be left up to the woman.
In the case of rape: while I personally believe that punishing the child for the someone else's crime is wrong, I don't believe that the mother should be forced to bear that man's child.
Regardless, hard cases such as these make up <1% of abortions performed, the rest are for convenience sake. Which disgusts me.
God made condoms for a reason.

Absinthe, when does life begin?

Also, conception can still take place even with the use of protection. So what are you getting at? Punish and burden people over broken condoms, failed diaphragms, taking the pill too late? Do you seriously think that pushing another life onto these people is a wise choice? This is absolutely insane.

I love this, when people laud abstinence because protection doesn't work, everyone says it works fine and that's paranoia. But as soon as abortion enters the picture, the failure rate of protection increases exponentially.

 

[CptStern]

Pro life, if the woman doesn't want a kid then she should keep her legs shut. Or use protection.

yes so what happens when the mother does want the child but due to complications the child will never survive birth ..should the mother take it to full term and prolong her emotional distress to placate morality idiots who are more concerned about people following THEIR moral code than the welfare of the child and mother? but of course pro-lifers never actually think through their idiotic opinions because they cant project their logic to it's inevitable concluision ..all they see is the moral issue behind it. For my money they should just stfu ..unless it affects them DIRECTLY they have no say in the matter

 

[MiccyNarc]

yes so what happens when the mother does want the child but due to complications the child will never survive birth ..should the mother take it to full term and prolong her emotional distress to placate morality idiots who are more concerned about people following THEIR moral code than the welfare of the child and mother? but of course pro-lifers never actually think through their idiotic opinions because they cant project their logic to it's inevitable concluision ..all they see is the moral issue behind it. For my money they should just stfu ..unless it affects them DIRECTLY they have no say in the matter

If it's 100% certain that the child will not survive childbirth, then I don't see a reason to prolong the suffering. But only if it's 100% certain.

Again, hard cases such as these are extremely rare. Most abortions are performed because the mother does not want the child.

 

[Tyguy]

If it's 100% certain that the child will not survive childbirth, then I don't see a reason to prolong the suffering. But only if it's 100% certain.

Again, hard cases such as these are extremely rare. Most abortions are performed because the mother does not want the child.

Then Dr. Kevorkian shouldn't of gotten in trouble according to that mindset...

 

[The Monkey]

Did you miss the "or use protection"?

What about when the protection fails?

Because it's a hell of a lot more human than a fly.

How, exactly? You do consider sperms to "life" as well?

 

[Tyguy]

What about when the protection fails?


How, exactly? You do consider sperms to "life" as well?

haha, if thats so, i just had a million abortions last night

 

[CptStern]

If it's 100% certain that the child will not survive childbirth, then I don't see a reason to prolong the suffering. But only if it's 100% certain.

well then you just condemned the mother to prolonged agony ..the doctors will NEVER give you a definate answer ..they CANT due to moral and ethical issues (re: litigation) ...all you are given is projections. They CANNOT advise you in any way

Again, hard cases such as these are extremely rare.

no they are not, they are actually quite common ...you have a 1 in 200 chance of it happening ..banning abortion means that in every single one of these cases the mother will have to carry the baby to term ..all because some religious ****s think it's their business to tell other people how to live their lives

Most abortions are performed because the mother does not want the child.

"cant" doesnt fit into the equation? are you saying that every single person who's ever had an abortion did so due to selfish reasons? that's rediculous ..I truely hope you are never in a position where you have decide the life or death of your child ..because if you take your learned moral route then you are guilty of caring more for some idiotic moral code than you are about the well being of your family

 

[15357]

The reason I support abortion is because I believe in second chances and mercy towards mistakes.


The reason that I agree with MiccyNarc is because it'll teach people not to have wanton relationships. Unfortunately, what is moral at this point is unclear.

 

[CptStern]

wanton relationships? since when should the state interfere with what people do in their personal lives? I know you're all for totalitarianism Numbers but you're not trruely free if the government needs to tell you how to live your life ..oh and spoken like a true virgin. Funny thing is that it is YOU people who are most at risk of unwanted pregnancy ..teens condom adoption rate is far lower than any other age group ...I wonder how many of you take the responsibility to wear one every single time without fault ..I can truthfully say I do: every single time

 

[15357]

Hey, I have no qualms against abortion. Their choice.


edit: Actually, I'm kinda confused between morality here. It is moral not to have an abortion, somehow, and it's also moral to let someone have one. :rolling:

 

[15357]

Ah, and my mind has given me a middle ground.

We should make the person have the baby, but if she doesn't want it, take it away to Securitate (Romania ) or your local secret police for training. That way it solves 3 things: 1. The mother's wants, 2. The baby will be in safer hands than that of a mother who hates it, and 3. ...uh, lower crime levels!

 

[MiccyNarc]

What about when the protection fails?

How often does that happen? I mean seriously. See my comment above.

How, exactly? You do consider sperms to "life" as well?

I consider it to be life when it has a heart beat and brain waves. That happens pretty early into a pregnancy, if you can eliminate it before then, sure. Most abortions occur well after that.

well then you just condemned the mother to prolonged agony ..the doctors will NEVER give you a definate answer ..they CANT due to moral and ethical issues (re: litigation) ...all you are given is projections. They CANNOT advise you in any way

Stern, I'm going to be honest and say I don't know. I don't believe in a complete abortion ban. There are circumstances where it could be necessary. But almost no abortions are performed for these reasons.

no they are not, they are actually quite common ...you have a 1 in 200 chance of it happening ..banning abortion means that in every single one of these cases the mother will have to carry the baby to term ..all because some religious ****s think it's their business to tell other people how to live their lives

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes about 25% for primarily economic reasons.

are you saying that every single person who's ever had an abortion did so due to selfish reasons?

Quote me where I said that Stern.

.I truely hope you are never in a position where you have decide the life or death of your child

Me too, Stern, me too.

 

[CptStern]

do we debate the morality of having a hair cut? our getting our toe nails clipped? because the mjority of abortions are performed when the fetus has about much sentient life as the above examples ..I mean if you're going to moralise about a collection of cells why are there no "right to life" protests at the local manicurists?

where are the mental midgets holding up placards saying "Stop Toe Nail murder now!!!"?

 

[PvtRyan]

Nails and hair are always lifeless. They're never alive. But your point is noted.

 

[Tyguy]

Toe Nails had it coming, with their sharp edges and all

 

[15357]

non-relvant delete

 

[MiccyNarc]

do we debate the morality of having a hair cut? our getting our toe nails clipped? because the mjority of abortions are performed when the fetus has about much sentient life as the above examples ..I mean if you're going to moralise about a collection of cells why are there no "right to life" protests at the local manicurists?

where are the mental midgets holding up placards saying "Stop Toe Nail murder now!!!"?

Stern, the heart begins beating 5 weeks into a pregnancy, the brain forms around the same time. How is that anything other than life?
Your toe nail doesn't have a goddamn brain, nor does your hair, nor do either have detectable heartbeats. Ridiculous strawman analogy, you should be ashamed.

 

[Gray Fox]

don't mind me.

 

[MiccyNarc]

don't mind me.

/minds

 

[ThomasToad]

Please take the time to read this, I don't post on the politics forum but this is something I feel very passionate about.

It's irrelevant to argue at what point you believe life begins, the fact of the matter is that it will become a human life. Abortion is destroying a human life or potential human life however you look at it, there are no iff's and's or but's about it. At least fess up to what you are supporting.

With that said, I believe people look at this issue from an entirely wrong angle. Abortion is not a womens rights issue, but rather a humans rights issue for the child to be born. All of you justifying it by saying you can't tell a woman what to do with her body are completely missing the point. What seems more important, a childs right to life, or a womans right to do what she wants with her body?

It is absolutely ludicrous for a woman to destroy a life so that it doesn't inconvenience hers. You can give the child up for adoption if you cannot support it. If you want to argue that an adopted child would have a worse life, then I ask who are you to judge the worth of a human life?

I know "pro-choice" sounds like a great thing, you can't take away ones right to choose right? What about the childs right to choose to live? This is not a womans rights issue. I think the main problem is people choose to be pro-choice as a political stance, they feel that stance is a representation of the beliefs of their political affiliation. Don't look at this issue from a political standpoint but rather from a moral and ethical standpoint, and no i'm not talking about religion.

 

[Absinthe]

Because it's a hell of a lot more human than a fly.

The fly comparison is a bit much. It would be more appropriate to ask "Why do you grant more value to a fetus or a zygote than the animals you eat?". Anybody who feels the need to protect little zygotes or even fetuses in the early stages of development yet has no problem eating a burger has not taken the time to sort out his priorities.

Personally, I'd rather do away with abortion entirely unless the mother's life is at stake, in which case you're choosing between the life of the woman and the life of the baby. Then the decision should be left up to the woman.

So the woman is free to commit murder?

You are still not making sense.

In the case of rape: while I personally believe that punishing the child for the someone else's crime is wrong, I don't believe that the mother should be forced to bear that man's child.

Same as above. You have carved out a nice little double standard where fetuses and zygotes are actual people unless they are conceived from nonconsensual sex. Then they're suddenly not as important.

So what you're really getting at is that consent is what makes a person? Because that's the only direction your reasoning is heading.

Absinthe, when does life begin?

RED HERRING ALERT

This isn't about whether or not the collection of cells inside the mother is life. It is life. The question is whether or not we grant it moral rights like you and I have. That's the significant distinction between swatting a fly and killing your neighbor. Why are people still having trouble grasping this?

I do not know for sure when those moral rights are deserved. But I do know that they should not be granted at conception. As I have said two times now, the debate should be moved forward into the developmental process, because what exists at conception and for some time after is nothing but protoplasm with DNA that only carries instructions on how to begin making a person.

These are building blocks. Not the thing itself.

Regardless, hard cases such as these make up <1% of abortions performed, the rest are for convenience sake. Which disgusts me.
God made condoms for a reason.

I love this, when people laud abstinence because protection doesn't work, everyone says it works fine and that's paranoia. But as soon as abortion enters the picture, the failure rate of protection increases exponentially.

God did not make condoms. People made condoms. Condoms have an inherent failure rate just like every man-made product. I really don't care what you think about that, but it's the truth. Yes, safe sex devices are a better alternative to abstinence, but they are still capable of breaking. And you pretty much advise punishment in those cases.

 

[MiccyNarc]

If you want to argue that an adopted child would have a worse life,

And this is wrong...my sister and her husband can't have kids, so she adopted her child from an alcoholic who got knocked up at a party and had no way of supporting the child.

The child was taken out of a bad situation and put into a much better situation (her new father is an engineer making loads of money). And they are both overjoyed to have a child.

 

[15357]

Please take the time to read this, I don't post on the politics forum but this is something I feel very passionate about.

It's irrelevant to argue at what point you believe life begins, the fact of the matter is that it will become a human life. Abortion is destroying a human life or potential human life however you look at it, there are no iff's and's or but's about it. At least fess up to what you are supporting.

With that said, I believe people look at this issue from an entirely wrong angle. Abortion is not a womens rights issue, but rather a humans rights issue for the child to be born. All of you justifying it by saying you can't tell a woman what to do with her body are completely missing the point. What seems more important, a childs right to life, or a womans right to do what she wants with her body?

It is absolutely ludicrous for a woman to destroy a life so that it doesn't inconvenience hers. You can give the child up for adoption if you cannot support it. If you want to argue that an adopted child would have a worse life, then I ask who are you to judge the worth of a human life?

I know "pro-choice" sounds like a great thing, you can't take away ones right to choose right? What about the childs right to choose to live? This is not a womans rights issue. I think the main problem is people choose to be pro-choice as a political stance, they feel that stance is a representation of the beliefs of their political affiliation. Don't look at this issue from a political standpoint but rather from a moral and ethical standpoint, and no i'm not talking about religion.

The unborn's right to be born? Unfortunately, there is no god-given right for anyone on this world.

 

[Absinthe]

It's irrelevant to argue at what point you believe life begins, the fact of the matter is that it will become a human life. Abortion is destroying a human life or potential human life however you look at it, there are no iff's and's or but's about it. At least fess up to what you are supporting.

You've clearly not taken the time to read word one of what anybody else has said. If you did, you'd realize that the debate is whether or not zygotes or early-development fetuses actually constitute human life.

*Edited for language.

And this is wrong...my sister and her husband can't have kids, so she adopted her child from an alcoholic who got knocked up at a party and had no way of supporting the child.

The child was taken out of a bad situation and put into a much better situation (her new father is an engineer making loads of money). And they are both overjoyed to have a child.

That's good for them, but it's also a complete non-issue if the child never existed in the first place.

 

[MiccyNarc]

The fly comparison is a bit much. It would be more appropriate to ask "Why do you grant more value to a fetus or a zygote than the animals you eat?". Anybody who feels the need to protect little zygotes or even fetuses in the early stages of development yet has no problem eating a burger has not taken the time to sort out his priorities.

So it magically changes species as soon as it exits the womb? It's something other than homo sapien until it's born?

So the woman is free to commit murder?

You are still not making sense.

I'm giving the woman the choice of suicide or murder.
These instances are extremely rare, however.

Same as above. You have carved out a nice little double standard where fetuses and zygotes are actual people unless they are conceived from nonconsensual sex. Then they're suddenly not as important.

So what you're really getting at is that consent is what makes a person? Because that's the only direction your reasoning is heading.

Alright, I concede. I'd rather not see any abortion, at all, ever, no matter what. I believe in any case it's murder.
The only reason why I leave an exception for the life of the mother is that you're choosing who should die. Would you prefer we rolled dice to determine who should live?

This isn't about whether or not the collection of cells inside the mother is life. It is life. The question is whether or not we grant it moral rights like you and I have. That's the significant distinction between swatting a fly and killing your neighbor. Why are people still having trouble grasping this?

I do not know for sure where those moral rights are deserved. But I do know that they should not be granted at conception. As I have said two times now, the debate should be moved forward into the developmental process, because what exists at conception and for some time after is nothing but protoplasm with DNA that only carries instructions on how to begin making a person.

These are building blocks. Not the thing itself.

When do they become the thing? I've told you when I believe they do.

God did not make condoms. People made condoms.

That was a joke.

There is more to birth control than condoms and most condom failure results from improper use.

 

[ThomasToad]

The unborn's right to be born? Unfortunately, there is no god-given right for anyone on this world.

Again, you are missing the point. It will become a life, an abortion is denying that life from existing. It doesn't matter if it's unborn. I'm not going to sit here and argue rights but if the right of a woman choosing to do what she wants with her body is brought up I will argue the right to life, unborn or not. Take a moral and ethical stance.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Again, you are missing the point. It will become a life, an abortion is denying that life from existing. It doesn't matter if it's unborn. I'm not going to sit here and argue rights but if the right of a woman choosing to do what she wants with her body is brought up I will argue the right to life, unborn or not. Take a moral and ethical stance.

You're not helping. Are sperm life? Are eggs life? Because destroying the above is denying life from existing. >.<

 

[CptStern]

Stern, I'm going to be honest and say I don't know. I don't believe in a complete abortion ban. There are circumstances where it could be necessary. But almost no abortions are performed for these reasons.

again you're missing the point ..it doesnt matter if there is one case a year ..with a ban on abortion that mother would have to carry the baby to term

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

those figures are misleading ..expectant mothers do not recieve the level of screening necessary to find abnormalities; they are given screenings once every few months to chart growth rate, the only way they'd see abormality is if the numbers dont match up ..ultrasound isnt all that accurate to begin with and often these sort of abnormalities can only be found through amniocentesis (they stick a huge needle into mothers abdomen and extract amnio fliud)or prolonged examinations ..which are never given out unless the parent has a history of problematic child birth or there is a high incident rate of abnormality in the family ..amniocentesis carrys a risk of death for the fetus at a rate of 200 to 1. Also in terms of mental health the only screening given to mothers is one for Downs Syndrome ..and even then it's not accurate ..they give you a rating based on age of mother, heath factors and blood tests (the number of cells present at the time of blood collection ..for a mother of over 35 it's 1 in 200, for a mother around the age of 20 it's much much higher ..1 in 20,000 ..and even if you get a 1 in 200 rating the only way to be sure is to have a amniocentesis, but the risk is 1 in 200 that the fetus wont survive the test ...so what do you do?

Quote me where I said that Stern.

ok:

Most abortions are performed because the mother does not want the child.

implied more than directly stated ..if it's because the mother doesnt want the child obviously it's for selfish reasons

 

[Absinthe]

Take a moral and ethical stance.

We're exchanging tips now? Here's one:
Think.

 

[ThomasToad]

You've clearly not taken the time to read word one of what anybody else has said. If you did, you'd realize that the debate is whether or not zygotes or early-development fetuses actually constitute human life.

*Edited for language.



That's good for them, but it's also a complete non-issue if the child never existed in the first place.

Don't assume what I have and haven't read. I know what other people are arguing. My stance is that it's all irrelevant because it will become a life regardless.

 

[MiccyNarc]

again you're missing the point ..it doesnt matter if there is one case a year ..with a ban on abortion that mother would have to carry the baby to term

That's why I don't agree with a complete ban of all abortions.

implied more than directly stated ..if it's because the mother doesnt want the child obviously it's for selfish reasons

I said "most" and 98% are not hard cases.

That's good for them, but it's also a complete non-issue if the child never existed in the first place.

You're an asshole. The mom is happy, my sister is happy, the child is happy. Everyone's happy, everyone wins, but you'd rather the mother killed the child. I fail to see any logic here.