Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Abortion?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic
The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#1

Posted 15 November 2005 - 12:07 AM

Well, personally, I belive in abortion for rape victims, and abortion while the fetus is still in early conception.

I am against "patial birth abortion" especially if the baby can survive outside the womb.

From a moral standpoint i find it wrong. The procedure for partial birht abortion is a voluntary procedure and the appointment is often made weeks in advance, I do not think that it is neccesary at all. Extreme tolerance for abortion in asia has lead to cannabalism, with human flavored tofu being sold in japan to help satiate the desire for human flesh. Ouch. Gotta leave it to the japs.
(incidentally I believe that hufu was invented by an american. haha)

user posted image

But this isnt about hufu its about the value of human life.

It is interesting to note that abortion can have a correlation with crime.

a guy named Steven Levitt wrote a book calledfreakonomics and one of the topics was abortion. He stated that because people were allowed to have children in the 60s and 70s, the crime rate went down in the 90s as people were reaching their teens and joining the grouyp at risk of being criminals. because unwanted children would grow up in a situation that might make them criminals, it would be better to allow abortion. Abortion is legal and my state and I see welfare mommas all the time with their electronic benefit transfer cards and their nine kids. So whatever. Interesting point though.

steve-0
  • steve-0

    The Forum Misfit

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2005

#2

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:13 AM

I strongly disagree on the topic abortion.Why?because your killing an unborn baby you can always adopt it but killing it is wrong.What if your mom would have aborted you.You wouldent had the chance to live and the baby that pregnent mothers are killing arent going to live life and if they dont want the baby they can always abort it.

icon14.gif good topic idea

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#3

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:48 AM

On the contrary, there are so many topics in abortion, making it the worst topic.

Rape - Okay, I don't know about you, but if I end up with a little kiddo in me that I never wanted, I call it a parasite. For this, I use this definition of parasite... " Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host"

Oh sh*t, the condom broke - Great, what are your morals? What do you feel is best? It's wrong to mess around and accidentally end up concieving a child, but whatever.

Condom? What? - Again, great, idiots, wouldn't trust one with a child.


Adoption? Sure, after the woman is ruined and, given the abortion trends at the current date, has a trip to the hospital on the house*.

Don't agree? Bite me. That's what happens on a topic like this. It's not a case of morals, its more a view on legit facts. Destroying a fetus is nothing, they have less competence and, well, anyhting than that of a mesquito. Yet we are guilty of mesquitocide, though you won't catch me complaining. Harsh, but true, in everyhting I say here.


* = Tax payers tab.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#4

Posted 15 November 2005 - 10:21 PM

Severely mentally retarded people don't have much capacity for doing anything either. They could be referred to as parasites to society - who has to pay for their keeping and welfare often because their parents give them to the state. Are you one to support the murder of mentally challenged people? Children and adults?


Of course not. Life is life. Whether it came about by accident, rape, or inconvenience, life is still life, and to take life is only acceptable in this society by self defense. The same is true for abortion. If a mother's life is in jeopardy, then the question of abortion is to be taken as an option... and I'm not sure if I support it there or not either. Until then, though, it's as bad as shooting a retard or killing your mother.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#5

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:30 PM

You are comparing two totally different things. Get raped = baby you do not want. I won't let something like that ruin me. And true, you could call retarded people parasites, though most have minds and can give back. The vegetables are lucky to have people that think they are worth every bit of time, though they would never know it.

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#6

Posted 16 November 2005 - 07:46 AM

I realize that some people will think this post is nothing but flame-bait, but trust me, I've given this a fair amount of serious thought. Here goes...

I've often wondered where this concept of "value all life" comes from. What is it that gives life value... what makes it meaningful and worth living. No, I'm not suicidal; I am curious. It seems to me the most natural of questions, immediately following "why am I here?" Is preserving life of the sake of life the paramount good in all cases, boiling down to a simple association of "life is always good"? Hardly.

Championing the "inherent value of life" above all else would involve, for example, disavowing Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech. Surely even the most pro-life among us can think of hypothetical or real cases where prolonging a life would be pointless or even cruel, while ending it would be merciful. Oddly enough, we live in a society where animals are routinely and humanely put down when they suffer from pain without prospect of improvement, yet humans in the same position are instead often forced to suffer, even if they themselves wish to die.

Let's leave aside emotionally-charged cases like Terry Schiavo or Tracy Latimer, and consider, for example, the case of anencephalic babies; babies born without brains. They have a brain-stem controlling their autonomic functions, which means that their lungs and hearts work, but without a cerebrum they have no capacity for sensations or feelings, let alone thoughts. With constant medical attention, they can be kept alive (for a while), although without a brain they have zero chance of being anything other than a motionless assembly of limbs and organs. Technically they qualify as human life, but what is the value of preserving that particular life? What good does it do them? (Incidentally, my fundamentalist Christian roommate is for keeping anencephalic babies alive at all cost, a position not even the Roman Catholic Church holds, arguing that we should not question the will of God. After all, if God had not wanted those babies to stay alive, he would not have invented invasive medical technology. sarcasm.gif )

To my way of thinking, value is not derived merely from the fact of being alive, but rather from the content of that life. While the pro-life crowd evaluates the value of embryos on the basis of the potential to form life, regardless of how good or bad, I evaluate them on the basis of the potential to lead a good life. Far better, then, to kill a few not-yet-human embryos, instead of forcing into life children who would be severely handicapped, or unwanted and unloved. Am I suggesting an open season on killing all the disabled? Certainly not. But what exactly is moral about parents knowingly allowing a child with, say, anencephaly to be born into a meaningless life, merely because they were squeamish about killing a few cells?


Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#7

Posted 16 November 2005 - 01:26 PM

@Jheath: Well, aborting babies with handicaps or harmful mutations is an extremely rare occurance. The vast majority of abortions are performed before many disabilities can be detected, and for reasons which have nothing to do with the future health of the child.

What is moral about killing something before it even has a chance to experience life, let alone experience a good or bad one?

Now, I'm all for killing people who want to die for legitimate reasons. I'm all for killing people who's lives are a useless drain on others with no potential for improvement or contribution to the betterment of the gene pool. But just like I'm against the death penalty because it can kill innocent victims, I'm also against abortion because it can kill potentially great people before they've even had a chance to learn to say "Mom".

@Mercie: Just curious, which would you prefer: get raped and have a healthy baby? Or have consentual sex and have a child with severe Down Syndrome?

I ask because you say "Get raped = baby you don't want", so I'm trying to discern where you draw the line between "babies you want" vs "babies you don't want".

ganja_man_biatch
  • ganja_man_biatch

    Pants are Overrated

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2005

#8

Posted 16 November 2005 - 08:23 PM

it's the woman who is gonna bring this child in the world, it should be her choice. maybe they should requirs a mental evaluation before an abortion, but i still think it's up to the woman giving birth. why bring a child in a world if you didn't want him in the first place. that's a relationship built on hate already, sure they may also have the choice to put the child up for adoption, but think about the kid. some kids have taken many years to be adopted and some have never been, so they just move out when the'r of age. now how ill that child feel. probably constantly depressed. and we can't forget the rape victims. why will the mother want to be constantly reminded of what happens anytime she looks at her child's face.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#9

Posted 17 November 2005 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Nov 16 2005, 07:26)
@Mercie: Just curious, which would you prefer: get raped and have a healthy baby? Or have consentual sex and have a child with severe Down Syndrome?

I ask because you say "Get raped = baby you don't want", so I'm trying to discern where you draw the line between "babies you want" vs "babies you don't want".

I was trying to draw a line between wanting/being ready for a baby and forcebly concieving. Honestly, as much as a child with trisome21 would, well... suck for lack of better words, at least the plan was to have a child.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#10

Posted 17 November 2005 - 12:14 PM

All of you people who are for "convenience abortion" claiming that if a child isn't wanted, a mother has the right to abort it - why then, shouldn't your mother come into your room right now and smother you in your sleep because she no longer wants you? Or no longer feels that you're a benefit to society, or no longer feels that she can afford you, etc. It's ridiculous to propose that taking life can be justified by inconvenience.

It doesn't matter whether or not you necessarily wanted to conceive or not...if you did, you're stuck with a life. You can either choose to raise your child or have someone else do it, but to end its life and try to say that that is just because you wouldn't love it is, well, ridiculous. There are plenty of infertile couples out there who would love a newborn baby. Who are you to take that child's life and potentially deny a couple a child to adopt?

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#11

Posted 17 November 2005 - 11:01 PM

I for one am for the day after pill, because it isnt much different than using a condom. It is only the abortions that allow a baby to actually develop into somethign that looks human that bother me.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#12

Posted 18 November 2005 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 17 2005, 06:14)
All of you people who are for "convenience abortion" claiming that if a child isn't wanted, a mother has the right to abort it - why then, shouldn't your mother come into your room right now and smother you in your sleep because she no longer wants you? Or no longer feels that you're a benefit to society, or no longer feels that she can afford you, etc. It's ridiculous to propose that taking life can be justified by inconvenience.

It doesn't matter whether or not you necessarily wanted to conceive or not...if you did, you're stuck with a life. You can either choose to raise your child or have someone else do it, but to end its life and try to say that that is just because you wouldn't love it is, well, ridiculous. There are plenty of infertile couples out there who would love a newborn baby. Who are you to take that child's life and potentially deny a couple a child to adopt?

Like my first post stated, a topic like this is not about facts. It is nothing more than morals, and those are nothing more than opinions. Basically, my point of view which will not change is I'm not getting 9 months of my life taken away unwillingly. When the time comes that I want to, yay. Should anything happen on accident, I'll take the consequences, but in all honestly, rape = loser with no life = no baby. Besides, regarding teen pregnancies, abortions are often a kindness to a child as it poses a 60% chance of miscarriage or many deformities of the likes. And hey, I suppose not having an egg fertilized is a crime too, though like a 3 month old embryo, it has no brain, no life (honeslty) and can't sustain itself (omg where are the 'unfertilized egg rights' activists on this one?).

Yeah. No more from me. You've seen all the possibilities, Yes, no, and maybe.

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#13

Posted 18 November 2005 - 01:26 AM

F*ck it. If my mom wanted to kill me right now, she should be able to do so without breaking a law. Whether I let her is another story, but, yea, the state should stay out of it either way.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#14

Posted 18 November 2005 - 02:03 AM

QUOTE (Mercie @ Nov 17 2005, 20:01)
QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 17 2005, 06:14)
All of you people who are for "convenience abortion" claiming that if a child isn't wanted, a mother has the right to abort it - why then, shouldn't your mother come into your room right now and smother you in your sleep because she no longer wants you?  Or no longer feels that you're a benefit to society, or no longer feels that she can afford you, etc.  It's ridiculous to propose that taking life can be justified by inconvenience.

It doesn't matter whether or not you necessarily wanted to conceive or not...if you did, you're stuck with a life.  You can either choose to raise your child or have someone else do it, but to end its life and try to say that that is just because you wouldn't love it is, well, ridiculous.  There are plenty of infertile couples out there who would love a newborn baby.  Who are you to take that child's life and potentially deny a couple a child to adopt?

Like my first post stated, a topic like this is not about facts. It is nothing more than morals, and those are nothing more than opinions. Basically, my point of view which will not change is I'm not getting 9 months of my life taken away unwillingly. When the time comes that I want to, yay. Should anything happen on accident, I'll take the consequences, but in all honestly, rape = loser with no life = no baby. Besides, regarding teen pregnancies, abortions are often a kindness to a child as it poses a 60% chance of miscarriage or many deformities of the likes. And hey, I suppose not having an egg fertilized is a crime too, though like a 3 month old embryo, it has no brain, no life (honeslty) and can't sustain itself (omg where are the 'unfertilized egg rights' activists on this one?).

Yeah. No more from me. You've seen all the possibilities, Yes, no, and maybe.

On those grounds, murder should be legal in all aspects, then. Especially people with no capacity for thinking, like the insane or the mentally retarded. You may say it's a matter of morals, but what isn't?

ganja_man_biatch
  • ganja_man_biatch

    Pants are Overrated

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2005

#15

Posted 18 November 2005 - 03:13 AM

QUOTE (The_man @ Nov 17 2005, 19:01)
I for one am for the day after pill, because it isnt much different than using a condom. It is only the abortions that allow a baby to actually develop into somethign that looks human that bother me.

yes that morning after pill is getting really popular. 72 hours after unprotected sex? sounds better than ladies worrying if their pregnant

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#16

Posted 18 November 2005 - 04:06 PM

As soon as the brain is formed, it is murder. Any time before that it isn't any worse than picking mushrooms.

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#17

Posted 19 November 2005 - 09:59 PM

Oh yeah, what if the child was born and was a great inventor who saved mankind by turning fifty angry chinamen into harmless bipedal goats?

A fetus has essentially as much potential as any other fetus (excluding deformations etc) so saying that you are never giving a potentialy great person a chance to live is like wondering what life would be like if we never slaughtered millions of American Natives, pointless.

What is moral? Respect for human life? Well if you want respect for human life, abolish prisons, the death penalty, stop arms sales, and give people freedom. Because that is what respect for human life is all about right? The right to live?

Also. How is a secretary who sits all day at a desk cattering for rich executives a bigger contributer to the gene pool then a mental patient? Life has no meaning, it is just a natural cycle that all living things go through. Meaning is irrelevant, because human beings as individuals do nothing but contribute to the downfall or survival of the species, which will eventually die out.

No I cant be right, so I declare that picking mushrooms is genocide, cutting the rain forest is genocide, and human expansion is genocide.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#18

Posted 20 November 2005 - 12:37 AM

And you're a derranged lunatic. sarcasm.gif

This thread isn't about the meaning of life, it's about whether or not it is just to abort babies. I say it's as right as walking next door and shooting your neighbor in the face. No one has countered that.

If the brain will form given proper nourishment, then it's murder not to do so. That's like saying it's not murder to kill a baby because without its parents feeding it it'd die anyway..

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#19

Posted 20 November 2005 - 04:19 AM

Well yes, a fetus that lack's mental capacity is no different then many people with severe down syndrome of other illnesses.

I think that it is wrong to kill a fetus simply because the fetus has no say!

It would be like killing helen keler.

In addition, most abortion processes are really brutal, like pulling off the limbs with a forcepts or stabbing it in the skull with a scissors. Now that is NOT cool. Doing that to a grown person is considered torture, and it is considered torture if it is done to a baby that could surviv outside the womb, like many babies that are aborted very close to being born.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#20

Posted 20 November 2005 - 07:16 AM

QUOTE (jizzyman @ Nov 19 2006, 17:59)
Oh yeah, what if the child was born and was a great inventor who saved mankind by turning fifty angry chinamen into harmless bipedal goats?

Or perhaps he was going to be the next Hitler or Stalin. Or someone who would eventually destroy the entire civilization. We cannot know these things in advance, and therefore cannot make judgements based on "what if". If it is likely, consider it, but most likely, that child will be a waste of a life just like everybody else.
QUOTE
What is moral? Respect for human life? Well if you want respect for human life, abolish prisons, the death penalty, stop arms sales, and give people freedom. Because that is what respect for human life is all about right? The right to live?

I never really said that I care for human life. I only said that it is going to be murder. Wether or not murder is wrong I leave for everyone to descide for themselves. If you want my oppinion, no, I do not think that murder is wrong. The only reason I support the legal system's strife to reduce the homicide rates is because I do not want to become the statistic.
QUOTE
No I cant be right, so I declare that picking mushrooms is genocide, cutting the rain forest is genocide, and human expansion is genocide.

Then I would have to inform you that you have been commiting genocide on the wrong kind of mushrooms.

jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#21

Posted 20 November 2005 - 09:58 AM

@ Mortukai

It's good to be back on familiar ground debating abortion with you... let's hope this thread winds up meeting a better end than the last. wink.gif

You are correct to point out that therapeutic abortions account for a very low percentage of all abortions (a little over 6% according to wikipedia). By citing relatively extreme examples I was attempting to undermine the extremist "pro-life at all costs" dogma increasingly becoming adopted by many groups in the United States. If it were up to those groups, all abortions would be illegal, even in cases where the children would be severely crippled or the mother's life would be in danger. It stuns me to hear representatives from these groups claiming to have superior "moral values" when in effect what they advocate is forcing even rape victims to continue unwanted pregnancies that pose a danger to the mother's life. (Sure, such a situation sounds like a mere strawman scenario, but consider the case of Rosita in Nicaragua.) Surely the line cannot be drawn at "no abortions, ever", as our fundamentalist friends would have it.

So where do we draw the line? You seem to be suggesting (in this thread at least) that the cutoff be between therapeutic and elective abortions. It's not a particularly bad position, as it would certainly cut down on the incidence of women using abortions as a replacement for contraception (something even the most liberal of us agree would be a bad thing.) My problem with this position is that it involves forcing women to carry babies to term they don't want, for whatever reason. Some women may have lousy reasons for wanting to stop a pregnancy, such as not wanting to give up an easy life of partying; others (such as victims of incest or abuse) may have extremely good reasons. It is hardly desirable nor practical for the State to dictate and decide for women which reasons are worthy or 'moral' enough. The line should be drawn at personal choice... allowing each individual to weigh the decision for themselves based on their own values.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#22

Posted 20 November 2005 - 10:52 AM

Of course it would be stupid to disallow all abortions regardless of the reasons. There will always be cases where the greater good is served by an abortion, such as the aborting of babies when the mother's life is seriously threatened, and when the baby itself has no chance of living anything approximating a normal life, and will serve only to the detriment of the mental health and economic stability of the parents.

But I don't think anyone has argued that abortion should NEVER be allowed.

I disagree with your whole "rape victims" thing, because there's a lot about rape that nobody knows or would be willing to learn. But let's leave it at that.

But your suggestion that the line be drawn at personal choice has severe consequences. Not least of which is that drawing the line at personal choice is precisely the same as not drawing the line anywhere. It's essentially ethical relativism, which is essentially "anything is ok if you want it to be".

Secondly, and this is where we risk the debate taking a turn for the worst as it did last time, when we draw the line at "personal choice" for something which is the responsibility of two people, we are left with the question of who's personal choice takes precedence. One thing that irritates me in all abortion debates is the constant focus on women. Worse though, is that the vast majority of these debates are conducted almost entirely by males.

Last time I checked, making a baby required a male and a female. Not even science has yet found a way to eliminate the need for male and female gametes for sexual reproduction. Which makes sense of course, given that without male and female gametes, you have asexual reproduction, which is an evolutionarily inferior method of reproduction for any multicellular organism.

So we need a man and a woman. They need to do their little courtship ritual, and then, once satisfied with the fitness of their partners, they need to mate. If the male has played his cards right, and the female ovulates within 3 days of their mating, then there's a good chance a baby will be formed.

Apparently this is where the partnership breaks down, and from here on in only the woman has any say in anything, while the male gets to sit back and wait to pay his first alimony payment. Or, if this little union has inspired pair-bonding, then he gets to work to support himself, the mother, and the growing child, all while she is the only one with any say in what happens with their child.

Note the word "their" child. Once concieved, at no point does the child's genetic material ever become any more "hers', than it is "his", and in actual fact is far more it's "own" than either of the parent's. In all reality, it is an individual living creature, no less a living creature at one day old than you are at 18 years, except maybe in raw body mass. But in terms of everything it means to be alive, a fetus shares all qualities of life with you. It is not, as many would like to believe, half-way between a human and a rock.

So my point, jheath, is that "personal choice" is a VERY precarious place to draw the line for the death of another human. Would you accept personal choice as a defence in court for homicide? What about euthanasia, where the "personal choice" was made by the doctor, not the patient? What about if the father's "personal choice" is that he doesn't want the kid, and so slips the mother some drug that kills the baby? Allowing people to do what they want based on their own values is nearly always a bad idea, because for the vast majority of people, their "own values" are as fluid as the weather, and change according to their desires and emotions.

Of course, this is precisely what we see today anyway, so I'm merely describing how things already are, rather than prescribing the ideal situation. The ideal situation would require humans to be rational creatures without an such an extreme aversion to altruism. But we all know that this isn't the land of Oz.


jheath
  • jheath

    Nameless Redshirt

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2005

#23

Posted 21 November 2005 - 07:08 PM Edited by jheath, 21 November 2005 - 07:14 PM.

Howdy Mortukai

For all its extended issues, such as personal choice or the role of society in our private lives, the abortion debate seems to always revolve around the central question of whether, or rather *when* a fetus should be considered human. After all, the instant something is considered human, it is automatically protected by all the moral and legal protections afforded by society, so both sides have a vested interest in defining this aspect of the debate. The two extremes seem to be that human life begins:

(a) at the instant of fertilization (the "conservative" viewpoint)
(b) at birth, and not a second before (the "liberal" viewpoint)

Supporters of extreme (a) point out, as you and others here have done, that a fertilized egg has the complete genetic code necessary for a new individual, as if the only thing necessary to qualify as human is having the right genes. Supporters of extreme (b) point out that a fetus has no ability to live on its own, an argument considerably weakened by the fact that new-born babies also lack that ability. Given their all-or-nothing mentality, both extremes appear to be problematic.

I think the key to a reasonable abortion policy is recognition of the fact that pregnancy is a gradual process. While at first an embryo shares nothing in common with a human except a complement of chromosomes, towards the end it is in many aspects as human as a new-born baby. It makes sense, then, that the protections introduced should also follow a gradually increasing scale.

At the beginning of a pregnancy the decision should be a matter of purely personal choice, since, let's be honest here, killing an embryo is in nowhere near the same ethical territory as killing a human with a functioning brain. (Moreover, if you want to bring morals into the picture, it is better to kill a few unthinking, unfeeling cells early in a pregnancy than force into life a child that would be neglected or hated because it is unwanted. Remember that keeping a pregnancy is not an ethically neutral default; it is just as much a decision in need of justification as is a decision to abort.) As the embryo develops into a fetus, the protections of the new life should rise higher and higher, until eventually only abortions for therapeutic reasons or extreme cases are contenanced. Hammering out an appropriate timeline for when and to what degree the protections are introduced would be a constructive exercise for society; unfortunately in the United States it looks like both sides are more interested in battling for their own polarized outlook instead of making concessions to reach a reasonable middle ground.

Re: the rights of the prospective father (AKA the explosive-but-fun issue of the last debate). You already know my stance on this. smile.gif For those who don't want to slog through the transcript, basically my position is that it is unfortunate but necessary for the father to have no binding legal say whether the women gets an abortion, because forcing a woman against her will to either keep a pregnancy or abort is a bigger violation than forcing the same on a man, given that the woman's body is directly involved. Should the man have some say, given that his future also hangs in the balance? Certainly... but that's something he needs to work out directly with the girl carrying his child; he should not be able to call upon the power of the State to force his decision upon hers.


Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#24

Posted 21 November 2005 - 08:23 PM

I'd just like to point out that the whole "death as a few cells is better than life as an unwanted child" argument is so outrageously stupid because of the adoption system here in the United States. At any given time I can guarantee you there are thousands of couples who would want nothing more than a newborn child.

Just a side note..

illspirit
  • illspirit

    lycanthroplasty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 01 May 1976
  • None

#25

Posted 21 November 2005 - 08:55 PM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 21 2005, 16:23)
I'd just like to point out that the whole "death as a few cells is better than life as an unwanted child" argument is so outrageously stupid because of the adoption system here in the United States. At any given time I can guarantee you there are thousands of couples who would want nothing more than a newborn child.

Just a side note..

Yay! An adoption system that is so borked, a large percentage of potential clients are forced to adopt children from other countries. Thus leaving countless kids to grow up in orphanages. This situation grows worse as the religious zealots who promote pro-life continue to force their morality down our collective throats. Like in Texas and Michagan where they're trying to make it illegal for gay/bisexual people to adopt or become foster parents. On one hand these theofascists are arguing "don't have an abortion, just give the child up for adoption!" while the other hand strives to exclude more and more people from the parental pool. If the fundies get their way, only Jesus fanboys will be allowed to adopt the kids they wish to force birth upon.


Oh, and in case anyone thought my last post was a joke. No, it wasn't. 8723986439048639086th trimester abortions are just fine IMHO. Mothers create life and stuff, so it is their divine right (for lack of a better term) to take it away. If a mother wishes to raise her kids to a certain size then eat them, so be it. It's not the governments place to intervene. And by no means is man in any position to say a damn thing about it until they figure out how to squeeze a baby out through their penis.

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#26

Posted 21 November 2005 - 09:36 PM Edited by Mercie, 21 November 2005 - 11:02 PM.

QUOTE (illspirit @ Nov 21 2005, 14:55)
QUOTE (Eviscero @ Nov 21 2005, 16:23)
I'd just like to point out that the whole "death as a few cells is better than life as an unwanted child" argument is so outrageously stupid because of the adoption system here in the United States.  At any given time I can guarantee you there are thousands of couples who would want nothing more than a newborn child. 

Just a side note..

Yay! An adoption system that is so borked, a large percentage of potential clients are forced to adopt children from other countries. Thus leaving countless kids to grow up in orphanages. This situation grows worse as the religious zealots who promote pro-life continue to force their morality down our collective throats. Like in Texas and Michagan where they're trying to make it illegal for gay/bisexual people to adopt or become foster parents. On one hand these theofascists are arguing "don't have an abortion, just give the child up for adoption!" while the other hand strives to exclude more and more people from the parental pool. If the fundies get their way, only Jesus fanboys will be allowed to adopt the kids they wish to force birth upon.


Oh, and in case anyone thought my last post was a joke. No, it wasn't. 8723986439048639086th trimester abortions are just fine IMHO. Mothers create life and stuff, so it is their divine right (for lack of a better term) to take it away. If a mother wishes to raise her kids to a certain size then eat them, so be it. It's not the governments place to intervene. And by no means is man in any position to say a damn thing about it until they figure out how to squeeze a baby out through their penis.

Can't beat that.

Don't try, you cannot. It is how we all think, thus, this is pointless. You can not and will not change anyone's view, you will just get yourself some flak and obviousily an argument.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#27

Posted 22 November 2005 - 11:46 AM

QUOTE
Mothers create life and stuff, so it is their divine right (for lack of a better term) to take it away. If a mother wishes to raise her kids to a certain size then eat them, so be it. It's not the governments place to intervene. And by no means is man in any position to say a damn thing about it until they figure out how to squeeze a baby out through their penis.

Really? Soooo, if, say, you gave me $50,000 to build you a car, and I started building the car, then got bored and set it on fire, you'd be completely fine with that? What if you gave me $2.50 to get you a burger from McDonald's and I decided that seeing as how I'm the one walking there, I should eat your burger? What about if you were baking a cake in the oven, and then all of a sudden your oven gained consciousness and decided to incinerate your cake because it doesn't want to bake a cake right now?

News flash Illspirit: mothers, in all their "divinity" and wonderful power, are completely incapable of making babies and creating life without men. It's called sexual reproduction. Read up on it. Mother's don't create life any more than fathers create life. Mothers gestate life. Gestation. It's like sticking something in a box until it's developed enough to come out.

What you're basically saying is that by virtue of being born with a placenta (interestingly, this is something that wouldn't happen if they were aborted), one gender is granted sole rights and zero responsibilities for the human species. You flip a coin, and then say that because they WEREN'T aborted, they can control all human life as they see fit.

Sorry Illspirit, but you're a <expletive deleted>.

Ah f*ck it, since Mercie agrees that this is how everyone thinks, let's just go with it huh? Sure. Sounds good. So, the argument is basically that because females were the gender which evolved the ability to carrry a baby to term (one of them had to do it, and whichever one it was would by definition be the female), then they have all the power of deciding life and death. Ok cool. So, since I'm a man, and men were the ones who evolved the largest and strongest bodies, and the largest and smartest brains, then I hereby declare that i can force any woman to do anything I want them to do, because clearly my boilogy affords me that right by virtue of my ability. If a man can't gestate a fetus, he has no say in what happens to it. If a woman can't overpower me, she has no say in what I do to her.

It's called logic and the principle of universality. Welcome to being proven hopelessly wrong.

QUOTE
I think the key to a reasonable abortion policy is recognition of the fact that pregnancy is a gradual process. While at first an embryo shares nothing in common with a human except a complement of chromosomes, towards the end it is in many aspects as human as a new-born baby. It makes sense, then, that the protections introduced should also follow a gradually increasing scale.

Sorry jheath, but I'm going to have to get universal on you too. See, if you want to argue for a system of degrees, where how "human" an animal is is in direct proportion to how closely they resemble a standard human, then we are left with three consequences.

One, we must first decide what a standard human is such that we can compare others to this standard in order to determine their right to not be killed. or at the very least, determine if it's ok to kill them or not. Obviously, finding such a standard would be inordinately difficult. Also obviously, any standard that is created will always have the consequence that, thanks to genetic variance, a good proportion of people will be determined as "less human" than others.

Secondly, why does the gradually increasing scale stop after birth? If you're arguing that "to be human" is to possess a "human-like" mind, then you've instantly discounted millions of handicapped people around the world who are technically significantly less mentally human than chimpanzees. If you adjust your scale to include them, then all of a sudden you'll find you've included a few genera of apes as humans, and you'll also find that there are still "humans" who are outside the scale. For example, coma patients, who are technically just a lump of flesh, utterly incapable of supporting itself without mechanical intervention. Technically coma patients are far more dead than even a newly concieved fetus. And yet I'm sure you'd have a problem if your mother had a stroke and ended up in a coma, and then your grandmother decided that she never liked her much anyway, so killed her, and used illspirit's wonderful "mothers are immune to ethics" argument in her defense. Or perhaps you wouldn't have any problem with that?

The third is your curious term of phrase "as human as a new-born baby". See, to me, a new-born baby looks nothing like a "human". It's way too small, it's all out of proportion, it can't speak or control its movements, it can't think or express thoughts, it can't feel emotions (only hunger, pain, and fear, which are hardwired reflexes), and it's basically a completely helpless lump of meat and bones which, if it was 20 years old and 5 times bigger, you'd look at with disgust and wonder how anyone could be so cruel as to keep it alive.

The difference between a new-born baby and a few week old fetus is about the same as the difference between a new-born baby and a full grown adult. And let's not forget that people change dramatically as they grow older now either. So who's more human? A 90yr old hunch-backed woman with Alzheimer's, arthritis, osteoporosis, and who smells like old people? A middle-aged stock-broker with a six-pack and a mini-harem? A new-born infant that looks like a horribly deformed scale-less lizard and can't do anything except sh*t on itself and cry? Or a developing fetus showing its first signs of fingers and toes, and you can see its heart pumping in its tiny chest though its still translucent body?

What's my point? My point is that a human is ALL these things. A human doens't begin and end at any arbitrary point. Every single one of us alive today possesses many of the very same molecules in our bodies as those which made the bodies of our ancestors thousands of years ago. Humanity is an unbroken line of genetic material. At no point did any of us just "pop" into existence. At no point were we "created". We we merely assembled from existing parts of our ancestors and the world around us. Every single one of us was once no more than some cells in our parent's bodies, which then became gametes (sperm and ovum), which then fused, and that fertilization was the first time we could ever be distinguished as something seperate from either of our parents. Then we grew into a fetus, growing inside our mothers, and being fed with material which our fathers were feeding our mothers. Then we become something that resembled a new-born baby, then we were born, then we grew up, then we came here online to debate whether anyone else should have a chance to do any of that, or whether it's ok if your mother kills you.

*sigh*

It's not complicated people. Really, it's not. It's very simple. Two cells, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, middle-aged, old, decrepit, dead..... it's all the same. It's all being human. It's all part of each and every one of our lives. What you are all trying to debate here is whether or not it's ok to kill someone at some given arbitrary point on that continuum. "Oh, it's ok to kill a fetus, if the mother doesn't want to gestate it". "Oh, it's not ok to kill a baby, because they are cute and we can see them". "Oh, it's ok to kill an adult, so long as they deserve it or you are told to by your government". "Oh, it's ok to kill old people because they've already lived their lives and they drive slow".

That's what it comes down to huh? Convenience. It's ok to kill someone if they are inconveniencing you. What's that? You're preggers? sh*t! You've got that big promotion coming up! Better kill it!

Or maybe that rule only works for women? Can *I* kill my baby if it'll save me having to work harder for 18 years just to afford to pay the bitch mother for that one-night stand?

QUOTE
Certainly... but that's something he needs to work out directly with the girl carrying his child; he should not be able to call upon the power of the State to force his decision upon hers.

I couldn't be bothered right now responding to your whole position on this... but I've yet to see your argument as to why a woman SHOULD be able to call upon the power of the state to force her decision upon the father, and not vice versa. Care to indulge me?

Mercie
  • Mercie

    .

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2004

#28

Posted 22 November 2005 - 12:20 PM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Nov 22 2005, 05:46)
QUOTE
Mothers create life and stuff, so it is their divine right (for lack of a better term) to take it away. If a mother wishes to raise her kids to a certain size then eat them, so be it. It's not the governments place to intervene. And by no means is man in any position to say a damn thing about it until they figure out how to squeeze a baby out through their penis.


Really? Soooo, if, say, you gave me $50,000 to build you a car, and I started building the car, then got bored and set it on fire, you'd be completely fine with that? What if you gave me $2.50 to get you a burger from McDonald's and I decided that seeing as how I'm the one walking there, I should eat your burger? What about if you were baking a cake in the oven, and then all of a sudden your oven gained consciousness and decided to incinerate your cake because it doesn't want to bake a cake right now?

Yeah, we all know how much time and effort it takes to get some sperm. If you pay 50k on a car than torch it, whatever... But, if you pay 50k on a buisness that will make you bankrupt (best analogie here), you best get rid of that.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#29

Posted 22 November 2005 - 10:02 PM

The analogy would be, what if you invested $50,000 in a business, and the business owner took your $50,000 and then ditched the business. You'd be pretty pissed.


The question Mortukai is asking is, if women should have the right to abort their children, why then, should business owners not have the right to take whatever money given to them, and then drop the business? Because you gave them 50,000, you should have some say. As investors do...

Alkaline Trio
  • Alkaline Trio

    smoke

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005

#30

Posted 22 November 2005 - 11:04 PM

Although there is no established religion in America, it is subtley Christianity that we Americans follow without even realizing it. I bet you that most of the U.S. Government is Christian. For example, Hindus in India look at the cow as a holy, sacred animal. Yet Americans torture, kill, mutilize, and eat cows. So India looks at us with disgust, yet we see it as something perfectly normal. And Americans look at Asian cultures in disgust because they eat seaweed, raw fish, and in rare cases, dogs. Yet to them it's perfectly natural and acceptable, but to Americans we consider it "barbaric". Now relating it to abortion, to American, it's natural to not accept abortion due to Christian dominance. However, we fail to attempt understanding the other sides' point of view (which Christianity lacks).

I do not intend to attack Christians. I am just saying that whatever belief is dominant in America, then the public will believe and side with it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users