Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[CptStern]

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.

ok right now, what would you do if your unborn child has next to no chance of living past the first month ..should the mother carry it to term? would you condemn a mother to carrying her unborn child knowing it will die soon after birth? explain to me how that is at all moral or ethical

what if your child will be severely disabled ..will you allow it to live or if given the chance at a very early age will you end the suffering before it even begins ..please explain how not doing anything is ethical or moral

btw if your answer is "allow it to live" how will you afford the huge expense of caring for it? a special school can cost upwards of $10,000 a month ..how will you pay for it? what about when you are gone, who will take care of your mentally handicapped, physically disable adult child?

 

[CptStern]

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

not once have I ever read legislation that allows for mercy abortion ...a ban on abortion almost always has a clause for when the mother's life is in danger ..absolutely never a clause for when the baby's life is in danger

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

it doesnt matter because those 2% will never be able to make that choice ..because it's been made for them by people that have absolutely no say in the matter

I think that there should be a referendum on abortion ..take it to the people to vote ..but with caveats of course ..all those against abortion are personally responsible for the care of all those unwanted children ..their wages should also be garnished (20% isnt unreasonable) and put into a fund to help parents with physically and mentally handicapped children, they'd also have to volunteer their time to help offset the social and emotional cost of thousands of unwanted children being born into this world on a daily basis ..I can guarentee no one would vote against abortion

 

[Absinthe]

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

Straw man. I never said it is at no point human during the development process.

You are equating parts to the whole thing. A zygote is not a human much in the same way a hand is not a human, even if it belongs to one. The child that's going to be given birth to is most surely human. But the exact time at which we can classify it as such still needs more thought. I have admitted that I myself am not sure when this is.

I can only tell you that equating a zygote to a person flies in the face of biological science.

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

I don't care how rare it is. It happens, and your stance doesn't square with it. We never allow cops to kill innocent civilians in order to save others. At least never intentionally. There's no reason this should be extended to wombs if you believe there are actual people inside in the early stages of development.

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

Sorry, but I have not seen a single coherent, scientific rationale supporting the idea of life at conception. Too many double standards, too many arguments about "potential" (You know something is wrong when you find yourself arguing purely in hypotheticals), and nowhere near enough of it is consistent with biological science as we know it.

Again, I've told you that I don't know for certain when it becomes deserving of moral rights. I can only tell you that I know when it isn't.

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

I know there is more to birth control than condoms, and my argument applies just the same.

Even if we're to grant that most instances of condom malfunction are due to incompetence. that doesn't change anything else I've said regarding the nature of zygotes. Basically, I don't see why you're getting all worked up in the first place.

 

[ThomasToad]

ok right now, what would you do if your unborn child has next to no chance of living past the first month ..should the mother carry it to term? would you condemn a mother to carrying her unborn child knowing it will die soon after birth? explain to me how that is at all moral or ethical

what if your child will be severely disabled ..will you allow it to live or if given the chance at a very early age will you end the suffering before it even begins ..please explain how not doing anything is ethical or moral

btw if your answer is "allow it to live" how will you afford the huge expense of caring for it? a special school can cost upwards of $10,000 a month ..how will you pay for it? what about when you are gone, who will take care of your mentally handicapped, physically disable adult child?

As difficult as it is, in every case I will always choose to allow the child to live. Suffering is a part of human nature but you can't know the worth of a life to that child. You can't argue that a severely disabled person's life is not worth it. Monetary issues are a huge concern, and there is a concern of child abandonment, but a poor life isn't determined from birth, and who is to say a poor life is not worth it? In terms of knowing a child only has a month to live, I would argue science is not exact in determining this.

 

[Absinthe]

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

Then your stance is inherently flawed.

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.

Irrelevant. Non-issue if the child never existed. Call me an asshole, if you want. But that is the blunt, cold truth. If you don't like it, then that's too bad.

Now, while you're off indulging your feel-good anecdote to support your pro-life stance, I've been back here in reality, and the simplest of logic tells me that if something is prevented from coming into existence, it never existed in the first place.

So I'm an asshole. But you still make no sense.

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.

Hmmm... No. No, no, no. I'm positively certain that you haven't read anything. Your eyes may have glossed over the pages, but you show no indication of having understood any of it. You've, like, missed the boat to Clueville.

 

[CptStern]

As difficult as it is, in every case I will always choose to allow the child to live.

why do you think it's your choice to make? does not the quality of life for the mother/child matter at all to you?

Suffering is a part of human nature but you can't know the worth of a life to that child. You can't argue that a severely disabled person's life is not worth it.

for someone with severely disabled child that's a non issue as they are most likely not aware of their own existence or lack of

Monetary issues are a huge concern, and there is a concern of child abandonment, but a poor life isn't determined from birth, and who is to say a poor life is not worth it? In terms of knowing a child only has a month to live, I would argue science is not exact in determining this.

again how will the average person pay for the life long medical expenses? and you would agrue science cannot determine the probability of whether a child lives or dies within an alloted time? what are you credentials that you can make that statement? have you examined every single case when determining your POV? you're speculating using nothing more than guess work and morality handed to you by people who couldnt care less about the welfare of the mother or child. Again who will pay for the life long treatment neccesary to ensure quality of life ..if you're american the issue is made even more difficult due to an overwhelming majority of working poor who cannot afford basic heath coverage much less intensive medical intervention necessary even with something so common place as a child with downs syndrome?


again answer the question ...would you want your wife to carry a chld that will die upon birth just so you can follow some antiquated and rediculous moral code invented by people who have never had to make the tough decisions? your opinion holds absolutely no weight as you have never had to make that decision ..not doing what is right for your family and instead letting others make the decision for you is the lowest form of cowardice

 

[ThomasToad]

Hmmm... No. No, no, no. I'm positively certain that you haven't read anything. Your eyes may have glossed over the pages, but you show no indication of having understood any of it. You've, like, missed the boat to Clueville.

Thanks for the insult, you must be right. I'm sure all of your scientific knowledge has relevance towards my argument. You win.

 

[Absinthe]

Yeah, it kind of does.

In fact, it has less to do with science and more to do with common sense. For instance, if the debate at present is whether or not zygotes and fetuses deserve moral rights, one is generally expected to explain and his support his assertions. In your case, waltzing in and pretty much just saying "HEADS UP, GUYS. THEY'RE PEOPLE." doesn't really do much. Then you say that I need to fess up to what I'm supporting? Thanks, but I'm well aware of what I'm talking about. Not my problem if you automatically misconstrued my position in your head. It just so happens that my position on this subject can be both moral and political. Shocking, I know.

If we want to talk about insults, then maybe you should look back on yourself. The first post you made upon coming in here was implying that pro-choicers condone the murder of infants. That's leagues beyond any cheap crack I can make.

 

[ThomasToad]

why do you think it's your choice to make? does not the quality of life for the mother/child matter at all to you?


for someone with severely disabled child that's a non issue as they are most likely not aware of their own existence or lack of



again how will the average person pay for the life long medical expenses? and you would agrue science cannot determine the probability of whether a child lives or dies within an alloted time? what are you credentials that you can make that statement? have you examined every single case when determining your POV? you're speculating using nothing more than guess work and morality handed to you by people who couldnt care less about the welfare of the mother or child. Again who will pay for the life long treatment neccesary to ensure quality of life ..if you're american the issue is made even more difficult due to an overwhelming majority of working poor who cannot afford basic heath coverage much less intensive medical intervention necessary even with something so common place as a child with downs syndrome?


again answer the question ...would you want your wife to carry a chld that will die upon birth just so you can follow some antiquated and rediculous moral code invented by people who have never had to make the tough decisions? your opinion holds absolutely no weight as you have never had to make that decision

I'll discuss this later, I have to go.

 

[CptStern]

and that's the last we'll hear from you on this issue

 

[Angry Lawyer]

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.

Straw-manning. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is being able to choose. The mother has a choice if she feels it's morally right to complete the full pregnancy or not. It's the difference between being able to have your own moral convictions, and having someone else's forced upon you. You make it sound as if the pro-choice side are going around aborting every fetus that isn't going to have a perfect life:

Newsflash. They're not. They support the right to be able to make your own choices.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

If you believe abortion is murder, because it will become a living thing, then so must contraception. After all, if you didn't take that pill or use that condom, the fertilized creature would grow into a creature. So contraception must be bad as well as you are stopping life from existing. So anti-abortionists cannot logically use contraception.

 

[CptStern]

or masterbate ...think of all the potential life wasted!

 

[Mith']

Here are some important point to take into consideration

1. There were 854,122 legal abortions in the US in 2003. Meaning you would need about 400,000 families willing to adopt 2 children EVERY year.

2. Suicide rates among adopted children are twice as high.

3. Not all can afford to have a baby.

4. Not all can afford to CARRY a baby. (What if the mother is a dancer?)

5. If there is a ban on abortion it is very likely that the coathanger industry will bloom. At least now it is under controlled circumstances.

6. Carrying a children you want can be very stressful, how do you think it feels like to carry a baby you don't even want?

7. Pregnant teens are often treated as social outcasts.

8. Is a life created by rape/incest less of a life than one created by normal sex?

That's all I could come up with right now,

 

[Tyguy]

Good points....Picture all the illegal abortion clinics that would open up and all the people who would undeniably be harmed in the process.

 

[tehsolace]

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.

Sure its life, but so is bacteria. Thats not the debate. The issue is whether or not it is "human life", which is protected by our idea of the God given right to live.


Again I see people saying crap like "abortion is wrong except in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in jeapordy". THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

If you believe abortion is wrong, then you must believe that the fetus is to be considered a human being (its fundamental). And because you believe its a human being, it has the right to life and so abortion is wrong.

WITH THAT LOGIC: You can't just say "oh well its okay to kill it if the mother was raped" or "oh its okay to kill it if the mother's life is in jeopardy". Thats just using exceptions to a rule in the scenarios that favor your point of view... which is ridiculous. If its a human being, then its wrong to kill it in ANY situation, even to save the mother's life, and especially because it wasn't the mother's fault for getting pregnant due to rape.

If you believe the fetus is a human, than for gods sake act like it.

 

[Tyguy]

i wanna say when the baby is formed and capable living on its own, thats where i draw the line....but as far as early in the pregnancy, its not human

 

[CptStern]

heh a baby cant live on it's own till about the age of 2-3 and even then unless it has a steady food supply well chances are it wont survive for very long ..contrary to popular belief raising a child is extremely difficult

 

[Absinthe]

Indeed. Beating hearts aren't enough to deserve moral rights. Terri Schiavo may have had a functioning body, but for all intents and purposes, she was dead.

Our entire concept of a person rests in its assumed sentience and sense of self. That's what a person is. That's what holds all the thoughts, beliefs, opinions, feelings, experiences, and personality of an individual.

Zygotes and early-stage fetuses have no concept of the self, let alone sentience. They are just masses of biological matter until the faculties for cognition are created. So when you talk about killing children when you have an abortion, you're talking out of your ****ing ass.

 

[Tyguy]

well, you know what i mean

 

[Angry Lawyer]

This suddenly seems strangely appropriate.

http://ruserios.org/babby.swf

-Angry Lawyer

 

[The Monkey]

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.

What about every time you have sex and there is no conception? The parents are also denying a future child its life in that case, seeing as it would've lived if the woman became pregnant.

 

[Tyguy]

This suddenly seems strangely appropriate.

http://ruserios.org/babby.swf

-Angry Lawyer

ehhhh, huh?

 

[ríomhaire]

Yeah, what?

 

[Krynn72]

I stated my view on this in the OT thread referenced in the post.

 

[Solaris]

I stated my view on this in the OT thread referenced in the post.

You resurrected a week old thread for that?

 

[Krynn72]

ZOMG 4 DAY OLD THREAD RESURRECTION?!!?!? WHAT WAS I THINKING?!?!


But seriously... It was still on the front page. You cant resurrect something thats still on the front page. And besides, Im the one who caused the initial debate

 

[Kyorisu]

I think the great thing about these debates is I know my side will always win.

 

[Baratos]

I fail to see how there is a pro-life argument. A person is unable to force another person, to, say, donate their kidney to save the victim's life. Similary, a fetus cannot force a women to suffer for 9 months to save its life.

the heart begins beating 5 weeks into a pregnancy, the brain forms around the same time. How is that anything other than life?

Why does anyone care whether or not the fetus is alive? How does that even matter? Fish are also alive, yet nobody seems to be bothered by killing them. Magpies will hold little ceremonies when one of them dies, standing over the dead bird and showering them with leaves and grass for several minutes. Elephants will visit the places where other members of the herd died for decades. I fail to see how a little blob less intelligent than a cockroach deserves to live where vastly smarter animals are killed without regret.

 

[Steve]

I'm Pro-Choice, but due to my personal experiences would never support an abortion. I've seen what it can do to a woman.

 

[Cole]

Pro-Choice.

Why? Simple.

When is a baby considered an American Citizen and has all our legal rights. When it is born. Not while it is in the womb! Change this and i'll gladly change my point of view. However, that's the law and thats what i'd enforce.

 

[Krynn72]

I fail to see how there is a pro-life argument. A person is unable to force another person, to, say, donate their kidney to save the victim's life. Similary, a fetus cannot force a women to suffer for 9 months to save its life.
Why does anyone care whether or not the fetus is alive? How does that even matter? Fish are also alive, yet nobody seems to be bothered by killing them.

What a bad argument.

What if my roomate is going to cause me to suffer for 9 months of my life? I suppose I'll just kill him, since, hey, a fish is alive and we kill them.

Ok, let me ask this...

At what point should abortion be illegal? After the child is born?

 

[Baratos]

What a bad argument.

What if my roomate is going to cause me to suffer for 9 months of my life? I suppose I'll just kill him, since, hey, a fish is alive and we kill them.

Ok, let me ask this...

At what point should abortion be illegal? After the child is born?

Let me clarify: the law does not put you under any obligation to, in my anology, give up something like an organ to care for another person. Similarly, a woman is under no obligation to take care of something in her womb. The law cannot force you to save someones life. The second half of my post was responding to that crazy guy who thought that everything that was alive could never be killed, ever.

And yes, abortion should be illegal after the child is born. This is because most abortions made to save a woman's life are made during childbirth, and refusing to make an abortion would result in the mother dying, or sometimes both parties. A woman has more rights than a little screaming guy who can barely lift his arms. However, most societies in the past viewed infanticide as an obligation if the child was putting the rest of the family at risk.

 

[Krynn72]

Ok, I understand and support a pro-choice stance on abortions when lives are in danger, but its not always the case.

I dont really consider myself pro-life, because I can understand situations where abortions may be necessary... but there are also many cases where they are completely uncalled for.

What if a woman, who is in decent financial standing the resources reqired to raise a child just decided after a couple months of pregnancy that she wanted an abortion. It was just a "mistake" because she didnt use any protection. She doesnt want the kid, just because she doesnt want the hassle. Is it right for her to abort? Im not talking legally, im talking morally. Laws can change, and nothing should be supported just because "the law says so." *looks at cole*

As with all things, I believe it should be on a case by case basis. People who are in some way incapable of birthing or raising a child should have the chance to abort... but I think people who are fully capable of giving their child a healthy and normal life should not be allowed to deny that person that life.

 

[Stigmata]

It's morally impossible to define a "line" at which abortions become legal without somehow defining what constitutes life. It's fallacious to argue that a fetus will become human, and is thus a living being. [Incoming poorly-worded explanation:] That sort of explanation implies that, at any point during a process of construction, the current state of the object is considered to be identical to the end state of the object. A building is not a building when nothing but the foundations are laid, and a tree is not a tree if it's just the seed rooting in the ground. And by the same token, a baby is not a baby if it's nothing but a bundle of cells incapable of thought or feeling.

 

[Krynn72]

Thats true... I just have a problem with stopping something from achieving that end product, and I just cant get over it, no matter how many times ive been in a abortion debate. I understand all the points, and I can see some of the logic, but I just still *feel* that something is wrong.

 

[Jintor]

Imho, if the mother wants to abort the fetus, and does not see it as killing, then they can do what they want. If it's a black stain on their soul or whatever then - what can you do.

I mean, if you're going to have a child and regard it as a hassle, I don't know whether that's a bigger burden than not having the child at all.

I would think that people who have abortions would still be affected strongly by them, of course.

 

[Krynn72]

Why would they feel bad about it? I thought it wasnt killing or ending life

 

[Jintor]

Because most people, in their hearts, question what they themselves have already done frequently.

Well, not in their hearts. Because that's a thingymagig for pumping blood. But you know what I mean.

 

[Kyorisu]

I mean, if you're going to have a child and regard it as a hassle, I don't know whether that's a bigger burden than not having the child at all.

It's a silly debate because people will continue to assume one thing and then totally miss that there are other other variables ie medical reasons.