Abortion??? anyone??

[XxTinaxX]

well personally i think it's a woman's choice

so if someone has something to say to this


please do! lol don't be mean please :rolleyes:

[1krazykapt]

Having been born in 1959 and an adopted child i can not endorse abortion. Whould i be here if abortion was legal then, I don't know. If it means the mothers life then yes do it, but not as a form of birth control. There is too many ways not to get that way. I hope this helps you understand why some are pro-life.

[CompleteReg]

abortion should not be allowed except for certain exceptions such as rape, mother's life in danger, etc.

[Phenom]

Abortion is a tough issue.

because really no one can really go to the extremes.

completely not being able to have it goes against woman's rights. However,

when do we define a living being that cannot be sacrificed?

as for cases no one would argue that an infant inside the woman's womb that

is 8 months old a more value than chromosomes that formed for 15 weeks.

[davideyoung]

Ending an innocent human being life simply because of personal hardships is wrong. A parent killing their own children is wrong. It is barbaric.

[ipop]

i agree wit davideyoung

[MarkVI]

Very good points on this issue.

I'm religious, but my beliefs may not be your beliefs nor should I force them on you either.

Abortion is a touchy issue among many people. I believe that it is wrong to kill, whether it is in war, capital punishment, and even abortion.

Considering abortion among those, there are a few circumstances in which I feel it should be allowed:

-If the mothers health or life is in danger because of the pregnancy
-In cases of rape or incest

Finally, it should definitely not used as a birth control method. Late-term pregnancies should not be terminated, unless there is some threat to the mother's life.

It's not a nice thing, but it is one of those things that should not be one of our top issues. There are so many other social injustices that occur and abortion is used to distract us from what really needs our attention.

The Republicans use abortion as a key issue when they want to get their Christian base to vote. Tack on some abortion measure on the ballot, you'll get an increase in Christian voters who predominately vote Republican. (These tactics and more used in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, check it out online. There are many sources out there documenting these things). And of course, call the ballot measure something like "Keeping our Children Safe" and you're almost obligated to vote for it.
That has been the major problem with our current Administration and previously Republican-controlled houses.

Declare anyone who isn't for the Patriot Act unpatriotic!
Declare anyone against abortion as Pro-Life! (what an interesting use of words, does that mean people for the free choice of women and their bodies is Pro-Death?)

It's been a horrible display of partisanship and with the corporate media (there is no liberal media, no matter want anyone thinks. Not in the U.S, anyway) we don't get the truth behind all the issues. We don't even get all the issues!

Abortion is a choice, therefore we need the right to choose. The government is not to choose for us what a woman can or can not do with her body.

We need better education among everyone to better understand contraceptives and abstinence, depending on one's views.

There are many other issues, which need to be solved, that deserve our attention and will remedy many other problems with our world today.

[Enlightened One]

Abortion is just wrong, Most of the people having children are well aware of what they are doing. (not meaning rape victims) And after they are pregnant they realize they can't handle it and find a cowardly way out. life is life folks, dosen't matter what way you look at it, and it should be embraced and welcomed, not chemically dissolved, ground up or removed from a possibility of thriving.

We need better education among everyone to better understand contraceptives and abstinence,

This is true, yet each year we spend more and more on sex education, to kids younger and younger, and yet abortion rates skyrocket each year..

[palerider]

I'm religious, but my beliefs may not be your beliefs nor should I force them on you either.


What exactly does religion have to do with this issue? Whether or not it should be legal to kill a human being for no better reason than convenience doesn't strike me as a religious issue. Do you see other laws with regard to killing - murder, manslaugter, etc as religious issues as well?

[MarkVI]

The religion part of it comes into some people believeing that a fertilized egg is a fullfledged human being and those who believe that it is just a bunch of cells.

It's just the fact that killing is a religious issue in some religions (10 commandments- Thou shalt not kill, etc...) Some people see it as killing a person when others see it as killing some cells.
(I hate to use the term "some people," but I think I answered your question, palerider.)

[USMC the Almighty]

My thoughts on abortion: http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1290&postcount=3

[palerider]

The religion part of it comes into some people believeing that a fertilized egg is a fullfledged human being and those who believe that it is just a bunch of cells.

That isn't religion my friend, that is science. I can provide you with ample references from medical textbooks that state in no uncertain terms that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. What else could we possibly be? Those who believe it is just a bunch of cells cleary aren't aware of the science and are therefore voicing unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinions in the face of actual science. If there is faith at work in the abortion debate, it is the pro choice side voicing their faith that unborns are not humans in the face of credible science that says otherwise.

And full fledged? You aren't "full fledged" until sometime in your late 20's when you are fully mature. Until that time, you are still growing and developing. A newborn clearly isn't "full fledged" and yet, it enjoys the protection of the law based on no more than where it lives. Inside vs outside.

It's just the fact that killing is a religious issue in some religions (10 commandments- Thou shalt not kill, etc...) Some people see it as killing a person when others see it as killing some cells.
(I hate to use the term "some people," but I think I answered your question, palerider.)

Again, those who claim that unborns are just cells are ignorant of the science. There was a time when that argument could be made as was the case when roe was decided but medical technology has effectively put the lie to that argument.

[inbadfaith]

Ending an innocent human being life simply because of personal hardships is wrong. A parent killing their own children is wrong. It is barbaric.



How about bringing a child into the world when you cannot afford to cover the expenses for them them, to bring the child INTO a world of personal hardship?

[inbadfaith]

What exactly does religion have to do with this issue? Whether or not it should be legal to kill a human being for no better reason than convenience doesn't strike me as a religious issue. Do you see other laws with regard to killing - murder, manslaugter, etc as religious issues as well?


I don't think that the person meant religion, but rather, they meant ethics. Hume did not believe in an absolute right or wrong, rather, it is an emotive matter. Personally, I believe that ethics is a societal construction and inculcation, but that is another issue. Abortion is an ethical issue, and thus many people rely on their emotional intuition... and may fail to acknowledge exceptional cases and the impact that a state ban on abortion would have.

People who are entirely pro-life seem to believe that killing is wrong under most circumstances (with the exception of having the child being a threat to the mother), even in the case of rape or incest. I am entirely against this. If a woman is raped by several men in a terrifying experience, I don't understand why she must live with the experience growing in her belly for nine more months so that she can give it up for adoption. It just isn't right, it is like condemning her for having female organs.

I understand that the example I have given is a grotesque and less likely situation... but I believe it should be the woman's choice. I do not condone the use of abortion as a contraceptive form, but I think banning abortion entirely would only make those who actually need the abortion suffer miserably.

And even if a woman was able to give the baby up for adoption, how about the children who are not adopted? I don't think it is fair to abandon hardship and responsibility, only to transfer it to a child you will never have to face.


If we want to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, we should increase education and awareness (in both men and women) and availability of local clinics with access to contraceptives.

That is all.. :)


Btw, has anyone read the bit in Freakonomics, about the impact Roe v. Wade has had on the crime rate? :)

[inbadfaith]

PS- Why can't pregnant women drive in the carpool lane? :)

[Lilly Marlene]

Just lurking before turning this thing off and I'm stunned to find there is something upon which palerider and I do agree !

Not to get too involved in my present impaired state, but just wanted to reply to inbadfaith's question...


Btw, has anyone read the bit in Freakonomics, about the impact Roe v. Wade has had on the crime rate? :)


Yes (the notorious Chapter Four). The case made in Freako has been dismantled handily by two separate authors: Malcolm Gladwell and Steve Sailer.

Happy Monday everyone,
Lilly

[palerider]

I don't think that the person meant religion, but rather, they meant ethics. Hume did not believe in an absolute right or wrong, rather, it is an emotive matter. Personally, I believe that ethics is a societal construction and inculcation, but that is another issue. Abortion is an ethical issue, and thus many people rely on their emotional intuition... and may fail to acknowledge exceptional cases and the impact that a state ban on abortion would have.

Since we (as a society) don't accept that it is moral or ethical to kill other human beings because they might cause us some inconvenience, there exists a disconnect between what we claim is ethical and what we accept as ethical. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is somehow less human, and therefore less deserving of the protection of the law than you or I.

People who are entirely pro-life seem to believe that killing is wrong under most circumstances (with the exception of having the child being a threat to the mother), even in the case of rape or incest. I am entirely against this. If a woman is raped by several men in a terrifying experience, I don't understand why she must live with the experience growing in her belly for nine more months so that she can give it up for adoption. It just isn't right, it is like condemning her for having female organs.

Killing in the case of rape or incest. Hmmmm. Tell me, is it your contention that we should be allowed to kill anyone who brings up painfull or unpleasant memories? Or just those who are completely defenseless? We all live with the memories of bad experiences, some worse than others and many far worse than rape and yet, killing those who might cause us to remember or relive those events is not a viable option for us.

Further. Exactly what is the child guilty of that its life should be forfiet? I agree that someone should be punished, but doesn't exacting justice on the perpetrator make more sense than killing an innocent?

I understand that the example I have given is a grotesque and less likely situation... but I believe it should be the woman's choice. I do not condone the use of abortion as a contraceptive form, but I think banning abortion entirely would only make those who actually need the abortion suffer miserably.

The only ones who "need" an abortion are those whose lives, or long term health are threatened by trying to carry a pregnancy to term. We are, after all, allowed to kill in self defense even if the one threatening our life is doing so unintentionally. Abortion for reason other than to save the life, or long term health of the mother is for no better reason than convenience.

And even if a woman was able to give the baby up for adoption, how about the children who are not adopted? I don't think it is fair to abandon hardship and responsibility, only to transfer it to a child you will never have to face.

You favor killing those who "might" live unhappy lives? Do you also favor killing those who "might" grow up to be criminals because of the circumstance of their birth" What other sorts of people do you favor killing very early in their lives because of what they might grow up to be or do?


If we want to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, we should increase education and awareness (in both men and women) and availability of local clinics with access to contraceptives.

We have increased the availibility of contraceptives to everyone. There isn't a person in this country that doesn't have access to free contraceptives. Sex isn't an issue that can be addressed by making pills and condoms more easily available (which we probably couldn't do anyway at this point). Like it or not, sex, and its consequences are personal responsibility issues.

Btw, has anyone read the bit in Freakonomics, about the impact Roe v. Wade has had on the crime rate? :)

Yeah. It has been thoroughly debunked.

[Kiyomori]

I think this debate is a personal one. It's the Mothers choice. You shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy all the way until birth if she doesn't wish to. The most humanitarian thing to do, in my opinion, is to make abortion available, so it is a safe option. If you don't do that you have people desperate not to have a child going to extreme and potentially dangerous measures to abort. In the meantime make sure women who feel they want an abortion or completely aware of what they are choosing to do so they can make a well informed decision.

[palerider]

I think this debate is a personal one. It's the Mothers choice. You shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy all the way until birth if she doesn't wish to. The most humanitarian thing to do, in my opinion, is to make abortion available, so it is a safe option. If you don't do that you have people desperate not to have a child going to extreme and potentially dangerous measures to abort.

Do you subscribe to the idea that when one human being decides to kill another that it should always be a personal decision and is no one's business but the one who has decided to kill?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced into a pregnancy, but once she is, there is another life at stake and no one in this country is supposed to have to forfiet his or her life without due process of the law.

In the meantime make sure women who feel they want an abortion or completely aware of what they are choosing to do so they can make a well informed decision.

Tell me, do you also suggest that we make other killers completely aware of what they are choosing to do, but if they say that their decision to kill is a well informed one, then we should leave the decision to them?

If you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is not exactly as human as you, and therefore entitled to the same protections of the law that you enjoy by virtue of nothing more than the fact that you are a human being, you will have an argument. Short of that, however, you are arguing that you believe women shoud have the right to kill innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

[Kiyomori]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns? How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings? Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.

[palerider]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

I am afraid that you are wrong there. Whether it is deliberate, or not I won't guess, but you are wrong. Have you ever referred to a legal dictionary to see what constitutes a "person" in the eyes of the law? I have. And I have checked most of them. They all say basically the same thing.

http://dictionary.law.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/

1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

There are others, but to continue is just redundant.

Also, the relationship between an unborn and its mother is not symbiotic in nature. A symbiotic relationship, by definition, requires that the symbionts be two dissimilar organisms. A mother and her child are not dissimilar organizms.

And don't try to claim that the unborn is a parasite either because you would be wrong there as well.

Also, the law allows a woman to give the child up so she is not responsible for its future.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns?

Unfertilized eggs are eggs. By themselves, the are of no more consequence than a fingernail clipping. Ditto for sperm cells. Because of their unique nature, they do represent potential life, but that is all. Once they get together, however, their potential is realized. After fertilization is complete, neither sperm nor egg exist as such. In their place is a new human being.

How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

As I have pointed out, a sperm cell by itself is just a cell. Of no more consequence than any other cell. There is a vast difference between a potential fertilization and a fertilization. A potential fertilization is imaginary while an actual fertilization is not.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings?

At the point in which they display the characteristics of life. Should I define life for you as well? Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, it is manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. From the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is alive and since they can be nothing but a human, and they have done nothing to anyone, from that point they are innocent human beings. They don't lose their innocence until after they are born.

Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Now here is a rediculous suggestion. When a woman miscarries, it is because the unborn has died or is unable to live. It is a natural death. Do you believe someone should be charged when an adult dies of a heart attack or a stroke? Natural death is natural death.

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.

Since we are talking about one human being contracting another human being to kill a third human being, how is it a different issue?

[inbadfaith]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns? How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings? Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.



Haha I LOVE.

[inbadfaith]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...

[Lilly Marlene]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...


Let's see if this helps.

Legally, in many places, there is only one justification for killing another human being: self defense.

Science confirms that a developing fetus is a human being.

Thus to be consistent, the only justification for taking away the life of that developing human being, for killing her ...is if her existence threatens to extinguish or significantly impair OUR life (self defense).

*************************************


The circumstances mentioned by another poster above are red herrings, and not very effective ones.

Miscarriages and losses of bodily fluids are obviously not deliberately-undertaken plans ...scheduled with providers ... to destroy intentionally the life of a living being.

Also [point of information] 'symbiotic' is an inaccurate term for describing the relationship of mother and child (the word 'symbiotic' indicates reciprocal survival benefits).

[palerider]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...

This isn't rocket science, if you are confused, it is confusion of your own making.

In the discussion of ethics, do you support allowing one human being to kill another for reasons that amount to no more than convenience?

If you do, then there we are. If you don't, then it falls upon you to show that unborns are not human beings and therefore can't be included in ethical discussions revolving around the topic of one human being killing another.

[saggyjones]

For the purpose of this thread I'm going to assume that fetuses are living humans beings, and killing one is the same as killing a born human (although I believe there is a difference because a fetus' brain isn't fully developed until close to birth).

I am "pro-choice" because I believe a woman who doesn't feel capable to take care of her baby would not provide a good home for her child. Any mother will tell you that they love their children more than anything in the world, and I think everyone can agree that nurture as a child is very important in a person's life. In fact, it affects what they do for the rest of their life and what kind of person they are.

I'm sure you all know someone who was a bad kid, and they probably ended up not being too successful in life. I know a lot of foster kids, mostly because of my mom being a social worker, and they are nice enough. But their childhoods were so bad that most of them have landed in jail. Their parents didn't want them and were obviously not smart enough to use protection and not get pregnant. If a parent is that irresponsible and doesn't love their child enough to take care of it, do you think they are fit to raise the kid? No, they aren't.

Also, "crack babies" can have serious disorders and become addicted to a drug while in the mother's womb. And if a mother is using drugs while pregnant, she isn't fit to raise a child anyway.

If a woman wants to try to raise a child, fine, but if she doesn't have confidence that she can, then why force her and the child into a bad situation?

[palerider]

For the purpose of this thread I'm going to assume that fetuses are living humans beings, and killing one is the same as killing a born human (although I believe there is a difference because a fetus' brain isn't fully developed until close to birth).

Your brain isn't "fully" developed until you are in your late teens or early 20's so that point is moot. We are all still developing long after we are born and enjoy the protection of the law

I am "pro-choice" because I believe a woman who doesn't feel capable to take care of her baby would not provide a good home for her child. Any mother will tell you that they love their children more than anything in the world, and I think everyone can agree that nurture as a child is very important in a person's life. In fact, it affects what they do for the rest of their life and what kind of person they are.

So because a child "might" not live a happy life, we shoud allow them to be killed? There are no promises for any of us and to the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone who has never suffered any unhappiness so I suppose we should have all been terminated.

Also, the law provides for a woman to turn over a child without even filing paperwork to any police or fire station, no questions asked so she isn't responsible for providing it anything after it is born.

I'm sure you all know someone who was a bad kid, and they probably ended up not being too successful in life. I know a lot of foster kids, mostly because of my mom being a social worker, and they are nice enough. But their childhoods were so bad that most of them have landed in jail. Their parents didn't want them and were obviously not smart enough to use protection and not get pregnant. If a parent is that irresponsible and doesn't love their child enough to take care of it, do you think they are fit to raise the kid? No, they aren't.

If that is sufficent logic for justifying killing before birth, statistically, blacks are far more likely to end up in jail than even foster kids. Are you saying that we should just kill all unborn blacks because the chances are that they are going to turn out bad?

Also, "crack babies" can have serious disorders and become addicted to a drug while in the mother's womb. And if a mother is using drugs while pregnant, she isn't fit to raise a child anyway.

So how do you feel about going about rounding up addicts on the streets and executing them? Or is it just unborn addicts that you favor killing?

If a woman wants to try to raise a child, fine, but if she doesn't have confidence that she can, then why force her and the child into a bad situation?

Again, the law provides her with an out. She has no responsibility to raise the child that she does not want to take on.

[saggyjones]

Your brain isn't "fully" developed until you are in your late teens or early 20's so that point is moot. We are all still developing long after we are born and enjoy the protection of the law

This doesn't matter for my point below, so I won't argue it. But you're right once again.

So because a child "might" not live a happy life, we shoud allow them to be killed? There are no promises for any of us and to the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone who has never suffered any unhappiness so I suppose we should have all been terminated.

Also, the law provides for a woman to turn over a child without even filing paperwork to any police or fire station, no questions asked so she isn't responsible for providing it anything after it is born.

If that is sufficent logic for justifying killing before birth, statistically, blacks are far more likely to end up in jail than even foster kids. Are you saying that we should just kill all unborn blacks because the chances are that they are going to turn out bad?

So how do you feel about going about rounding up addicts on the streets and executing them? Or is it just unborn addicts that you favor killing?

Again, the law provides her with an out. She has no responsibility to raise the child that she does not want to take on.

I've changed my mind on abortion now, you're right, it should be illegal. But the only way to truly decide where you stand on a subject is to argue one side and be proven wrong.

[palerider]

I've changed my mind on abortion now, you're right, it should be illegal. But the only way to truly decide where you stand on a subject is to argue one side and be proven wrong.

No one changes their mind that easily.

I do believe that there are some rare situations where a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. If her life or long term health are in danger, for example, we do have the right to kill to defend ourselves even if the one threatening us doesn't have malicious intent. Such cases are rare and sad, but they do exist.

[Friendindeed]

Maybe she didn't change her mind that easily.
Maybe she has been giving it some thought.

[palerider]

Maybe she didn't change her mind that easily.
Maybe she has been giving it some thought.

Well, if she did, then I congratulate him/her. There aren't many around who will actually change an opinion based on a more powerful argument than their own.

[Friendindeed]

That would be the one reason TO change an opinion.

[palerider]

That would be the one reason TO change an opinion.

Few recognize that though. It has been my experience that people on these boards often hold their opinions for emotional reasons rather than because they were formed from any appreciable research. When one holds an opinion for emotional reasons, a more powerful argument is rarely recognized.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Few recognize that though. It has been my experience that people on these boards often hold their opinions for emotional reasons rather than because they were formed from any appreciable research. When one holds an opinion for emotional reasons, a more powerful argument is rarely recognized.

great quote.

something comes to mind here.... religion

[MarkVI]

Enlightening, palerider.
Most, if not all people are like that with different issues.
Deep emotions are better rooted than logical thoughts, I see it as more of a subconscious vs. conscious comparison.

I find your thoughts on that interesting.

[saggyjones]

No one changes their mind that easily.

You're right, I better go back to my previous opinion. Great job kicking someone while they're down instead of accepting a sincere agreement.

I do believe that there are some rare situations where a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. If her life or long term health are in danger, for example, we do have the right to kill to defend ourselves even if the one threatening us doesn't have malicious intent. Such cases are rare and sad, but they do exist.

I agree. I hope that's alright.

[saggyjones]

Maybe she didn't change her mind that easily.
Maybe she has been giving it some thought.

I'm not a she.
Also thank you.

[palerider]

great quote.

something comes to mind here.... religion

And this subject has what to do with religion?

[Snake1993]

i kind of agree with CompleteReg, but in the case dealing with a womans choice, i have stuff to say. Correct me if im wrong but Technically its Gods Body and his choice (the body being gods temple) but us being humans, we naturally do what we beleive god doesnt exist and tend to sin, and its somewhat tolerable, but i think god would tend to understand more in the case of a rape or something like that. but he will still forgive you if you truly are sorry. And even if you do it again(example for everything not just abortion) you can do the same but you have to still be sorry. Now me imnot even "holy" i just cant stop sinning, but for everything ive ever done makes me feel bad. but i dont know what to say when it comes to the "Baby" i dont know enough about the whole "chosen destiny thing" to discuss it. (ps. this subject has to be in god with me but every subject i disuss doesnt have to do with god)

[palerider]

i kind of agree with CompleteReg, but in the case dealing with a womans choice, i have stuff to say. Correct me if im wrong but Technically its Gods Body and his choice (the body being gods temple) but us being humans, we naturally do what we beleive god doesnt exist and tend to sin, and its somewhat tolerable, but i think god would tend to understand more in the case of a rape or something like that. but he will still forgive you if you truly are sorry. And even if you do it again(example for everything not just abortion) you can do the same but you have to still be sorry. Now me imnot even "holy" i just cant stop sinning, but for everything ive ever done makes me feel bad. but i dont know what to say when it comes to the "Baby" i dont know enough about the whole "chosen destiny thing" to discuss it. (ps. this subject has to be in god with me but every subject i disuss doesnt have to do with god)


I rarely engage in debates on religion and on this subject, it really isn't necessary. I am curious about the reasoning behind your stance on abortion in the case of rape.

Can you offer up a rational argument for killing a child for the crime of its father? The child isn't simply the child of the rapist. It is the mother's child as well so you seem to be suggesting that it is fine to kill a child if one or the other parent is simply unacceptable. I would be interested in hearing the logic that leads to that conclusion.

[Snake1993]

That makes my opinion sound morbid. And I do partialy beleive in what you said. But if the mother does choose to have the baby and later on the child is either in a household that is as unacceptable as the father is and the child might be beaten or neglected or even thrown in a dumpster somewhere, i beleive that if i were in that situation i would want to be dead before birth. I find logic in those kind of situations, but i still like to think about your statement.

[dahermit]

well personally i think it's a woman's choice

so if someone has something to say to this


please do! lol don't be mean please :rolleyes:

You may want to review the other threads and posts on this same topic on this forum. You can get the various arguments for and against without being subject to meanness.

[arbitor]

thats the basic arguement isn't it? "its the womans choice. that seems simple enough. but you are overlooking one simple factor. the child deserves rights too. shouldn't a womans rights begin in the womb?

[9sublime]

Its not if the rights should exist arbitor, its from when should the rights exist.

Aborting a baby due in a week is no different from abortion a baby that is alive.

Aborting a couple of cells after a few weeks is not the same as aborting a child by any stretch, whether you want to play semantics with what makes it alive or not.

Shouldn't the mother have the rights over a few cells?

If you say no and life begins at conception - should a man have rights over his semen? Or should he bottle it and make sure none of it goes to waste, because its hardly more developed than an egg and cell that have just joined.

[arbitor]

thats funny. after seeing some of your comments i thought you were intelligent enough to tell the difference between a fertilezed egg and a sperm cell. i guess we all make mistakes.

[palerider]

Its not if the rights should exist arbitor, its from when should the rights exist.

Aborting a baby due in a week is no different from abortion a baby that is alive.

Aborting a couple of cells after a few weeks is not the same as aborting a child by any stretch, whether you want to play semantics with what makes it alive or not.

You keep saying that but you seem completely unable to substantiate it in any way and your faith that it is so simply isn't sufficient. Can you prove in any way that an unborn at any stage of development is something other than a living human being?

Shouldn't the mother have the rights over a few cells?

Not if those "few cells" as you like to call them are another human being. Can you prove that they are something other than a human being?

If you say no and life begins at conception - should a man have rights over his semen? Or should he bottle it and make sure none of it goes to waste, because its hardly more developed than an egg and cell that have just joined.

Still can't bring yourself to make an honest argument huh? We have been through the whole "sperm is not a human being" argument before and you lost it handily. Do you believe it has become a valid argument again because you are making it to someone new? This is one of the really pitiful aspects of the pro choice argument. You lose flatly to one person, you have your beliefs proven wrong and then when someone new comes along, you drag out the same old losing arguments again as if they hadn't already been soundly defeated.

You aren't interested in really making a rational argument are you? You are simply hoping that you can "trick" the new guy into believing the very arguments that have already been defeated and when someone comes along later, you will drag out the same old losers and try and try to trick them as well.

[numinus]

If you say no and life begins at conception - should a man have rights over his semen? Or should he bottle it and make sure none of it goes to waste, because its hardly more developed than an egg and cell that have just joined.

You are seriously misunderstanding your own post.

If human life begins AT CONCEPTION, then there is no way a sperm cell is human life, no?

[palerider]

You are seriously misunderstanding your own post.

If human life begins AT CONCEPTION, then there is no way a sperm cell is human life, no?

Human life doesn't necessarily begin at conception but an individual human's life does.

[numinus]

Human life doesn't necessarily begin at conception but an individual human's life does.

And what is an individual human's life if not human life, hmmm?

There is a general confusion in your arguments that become quite apparent when one looks at your posts in the capital punishment thread.

[ilikeboobs]

"It is a great poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Mother Teresa

[RenegadeFuture]

Personally, I think that killing the unborn is a terrible tragedy, no matter what the parents' choice. If people don't want kids, they should use contraception, not deny life to developing babies in the womb, as if they are any less human.

Abortion is murder, but there are those cases where babies will be disabled in such a way that it will severely harm their quality of life so much that it won't really be a life, or childbirth might kill the mother. Parents don't own their children, even if they are in their mother's belly for however long. If the parents-to-be can't cope, then the baby should be put up for adoption, not killed because their parents don't want them. It deals a blow to "choice", but it isn't really a fair choice at all.

[The Scotsman]

..they should use contraception, ...not an option if your're a Roman Catholic...priests'll put a curse on your penis if you go in suited and booted!! You'll spend the rest of your life saying "Hail Mary's" or "Hail Caesars" or whatever it is they burble on about; all the time wondering what Hell's going to be like and if if they sell a halfway decent decaf latte. Best thing is not to mention it during confession I guess!!?? Or d'ya get blasted for that as well? bit of a bummer either way!


...Abortion is murder,.... ....errrmmm... says who?


..but there are those cases where babies will be disabled in such a way that it will severely harm their quality of life so much that it won't really be a life, or childbirth might kill the mother. Parents don't own their children, even if they are in their mother's belly for however long. If the parents-to-be can't cope, then the baby should be put up for adoption, not killed because their parents don't want them. It deals a blow to "choice", but it isn't really a fair choice at all.

Adpotion!!! Let's explore that myth shall we!! Like everyone's queuing up outside materity wards just to get their hands on severly handicapped kids...please!! One of the worst ways to be brought up is in care!

How many of such kids have you adopted?

Here's a little story for you. A trip into the alice in wonderland world that is UK PC, it kinda illustrates the problems you'll encounter going down this particular yellow brick road of yours.

The Catholic Church in the UK runs adoption agencies. They fund the care and medical requirements and placement of severely handicapped kids with parents whom they themselves train to look after these poor wee mites. These agencies do a fantastic job and are renown not only for their successes in placing children but also the aftercare and support to the adoptive parents - in short they're godsend so to speak.

Then, along comes our Government and says that all prospective parents should have a right to adopt irrespective of sex, colour and creed. No problem you think, isn't equality a great thing! Trouble is the Catholic Church does not recognise homosexual couples as their religion is against it so they go to the Government and say "look guyss, for our adoption agencies give us a break huh! can we have a dispensation?" Not a chance lads!!" say our elected f**kwits its against their human rights. "Huh?? okay then" says the Church we will have to consider closing our adoption agencies down!

Good luck finding prospective parents for all the unwanted kids Renegade! Handicapped or not!

[RenegadeFuture]

Oh, I'd like to clarify something. You misunderstood. I said, meant to make it clear, that in the case of severely disabled kids, YES, I think that abortion is justified.



...not an option if your're a Roman Catholic...priests'll put a curse on your penis if you go in suited and booted!! You'll spend the rest of your life saying "Hail Mary's" or "Hail Caesars" or whatever it is they burble on about; all the time wondering what Hell's going to be like and if if they sell a halfway decent decaf latte. Best thing is not to mention it during confession I guess!!?? Or d'ya get blasted for that as well? bit of a bummer either way!

Thing is, abortion is also considered immoral by the church, so that argument is invalid.

I'm Agnostic, and in a secular state, religion shouldn't really come into law. You don't have to be religious to consider abortion murder as such, myself being an obvious example. Contraception isn't really, as it is not inevitable that sperm cells and eggs will become developed fetuses, etc, etc. Capiche?

As for adoption, well, that's a different thing. The matter is dealing with those babies unwanted and discarded by their biological parents. Sad situation, but at least they have a chance at life, rather than none at all. If the catholic church has a problem allowing homosexual couples to adopt, then perhaps the agencies should come under government control.

[The Scotsman]

Oh, I'd like to clarify something. You misunderstood. I said, meant to make it clear, that in the case of severely disabled kids, YES, I think that abortion is justified.

...abortion lite as it were :D

Anyway... Hi Renegade - Yeah I'm not bothered about religion either!

I'm all for the womans right to make her own decsion about what goes on inside her body - as to whether she wants to abort or not, I think she and only she should make the final descision. Personally I don't give a monkey's chuff about all the arguments that get thrown around about a bunch of cells constituting a baby...yeah I know...... ;)

[RenegadeFuture]

Are we to say that unborn babies in the later stages of pregnancy are any less human, and any less entitled to a chance at life?
Once a foetus develops beyond a certain point, it becomes recognisably human, and develops a brain. You know how it goes. I think that it's almost equal to murder beyond a certain point. Make no mistakes, in the early weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is just developing, dividing into cells which will be the framework of the growing baby, but which do not think, cannot think, can only develop into such. I think that abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy should be allowed. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
The contraception might have been ineffective, or it might have been due to rape or incest. You get the idea. There needs to be some room just in case.
Choice is not really valid, as it's not just what goes on inside a woman's body, it's another human life, and the parents should have thought about that before consensually having unprotected intercourse, and not checking for conception. If they didn't want children, why didn't they use contraception before or after?
I'm willing to make concessions as to the stage in pregnancy at which abortion stops being acceptable, however.

[The Scotsman]

Are we to say that unborn babies in the later stages of pregnancy are any less human, and any less entitled to a chance at life?

Agreed - that's why they have a cut off! I think the rule here in the UK is only up to 24 weeks - after that.... tough doo doo you're sadled. They allow up to 24 weeks as from 19 to 24 weeks you can tell it there is any abnormality thus allowing termination. As I understand it most terminations are well before the 19 weeks mark.


Once a foetus develops beyond a certain point, it becomes recognisably human, and develops a brain. You know how it goes. I think that it's almost equal to murder beyond a certain point.

That's why they have the cut off period I guess...

Make no mistakes, in the early weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is just developing, dividing into cells which will be the framework of the growing baby, but which do not think, cannot think, can only develop into such. I think that abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy should be allowed. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Agreed!! We're singin on the same hymm here sheet then!


The contraception might have been ineffective, or it might have been due to rape or incest. You get the idea. There needs to be some room just in case.

Choice is not really valid, as it's not just what goes on inside a woman's body, it's another human life, and the parents should have thought about that before consensually having unprotected intercourse, and not checking for conception. If they didn't want children, why didn't they use contraception before or after?.

...happens to kids all the time does'nt it mate. Young and foolish....


I'm willing to make concessions as to the stage in pregnancy at which abortion stops being acceptable, however.

That's exactly how I see it too!! http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-638.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[Libsmasher]

Any such cut-off points are entirely arbitrary and meaningless.