Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Then there's also Insidious Rex and brownjenkins. They're the two I've specifically been talking with, so I know particularly where they stand .

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

It looks like its only Hasty and me who are pro-choice (anti-life, pro-abortion, anti-God, whatever), grappling with the debate at hand.

Sorry all, I didn't mean to imply that we were the ONLY ones. I just glazed over that part.

At the time of writing, I was getting carried away with my hippy communist bit.

So carry on.

[HLGStrider]

A lot of people have brought up poverty as a reason. I just wanted to run this by them.

As it has been said that a poor person has less of a life and that kids being born into poverty are born into a serious advantage and are all right to abort due to this, is it all right therefore to restrict children born to poor families?

I mean, by the logic you are suggesting, a woman who allows a child to be born into this environment is not doing the child any favor while a woman who aborts the baby is not only exercising her right, but preventing a terrible life which is to the unborn baby's advantage to avoid.

So, the woman who has the baby is the irresponsible one.

AND according to one of the members here, pure democracy is allowable, so we can vote this down if we want, since the majority decides, why can't we vote not to allow these women more than a certain amount of children? It's cruel to the child after all?

Now, that is one of my own admittedly huge leaps, but it is a logical extreme.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HLGStrider

AND according to one of the members here, pure democracy is allowable, so we can vote this down if we want, since the majority decides, why can't we vote not to allow these women more than a certain amount of children? It's cruel to the child after all?

Now, that is one of my own admittedly huge leaps, but it is a logical extreme.

Might one argue that when there are loving (albeit accidentally cruel) parents involved, the circumstances aren't so cruel as to be intolerable? Though that would be an argument based on a rather arbitrary view of what's intolerable and what isn't. Of course, I view the whole decision to take the action of abortion as arbitrary and intolerable .

[HLGStrider]

Lief, someday I am going to tell you the very scary reason I was refered to this site .

I think all views of "intollerable" are somewhat arbitrary. Everyone has a different tollerance level.

I get a stomach ache at the very thought of any abortion. I blame it on maternal instinct as I also know that whenever I am an expectant mother (which I hope to be someday) I am going to live in constant worry of miscarrying. I'm not really a worry wort as far as letting kids run wild goes, but babies are just so delicate, especially pre-birth.

Of course, presently this is not a reality. Neither is a holocost, so Nazism and unvolontary sterilization are really just two points of where the logic can take us if we let it go far enough.

It is never a fool proof arguement. We may be able to hold it back from ever reaching that point, but I like to bring up that it has before gone to that point (China, anyone?) and it could, and it is best to keep the precedent strong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HLGStrider

It is never a fool proof arguement. We may be able to hold it back from ever reaching that point, but I like to bring up that it has before gone to that point (China, anyone?) and it could, and it is best to keep the precedent strong.

China still has enforced birth control, actually. People aren't allowed to have over a certain number of children; the government sees a great need to keep the already monstrous population limited. That's not a policy that's segmented to one class of society, like what you suggest is, of course.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is worse? aborting a fetus at 3 weeks or forcing a 15 year old drug addict to have her baby which is then forgotten by the same society that insisted it had a right to live and is abused emotionally and physically all its life and tortured and twisted by the abyss of poverty it was born into? The child grows up feeling abandoned by the world and forced into selling drugs or prostituting themselves only to wind up in and out of jail by the time they are 16 until ultimately killing themselves from despair? Which death is worse would you say?

I would say that both are as bad as eachother. If you don't want or can't take care of the child then why not put it up for adoption? That way a couple who can't have children or who don't want to go through the pregnancy stage can have a child and the 15 year old drug addict has no child to take cae of but hasn't killed an innocent being.

YOU cant adopt EVERYONE (how many people here have adopted poor children by the way).

II haven't adopted but as I'm only 12 I think I should be excused that part. I agree that not everyone can be adopted but not everyone aborts either. It doesn't have to be adoption. They could put their child into care to be fostered or a willing realative could take care of the child. There are other options that mean you don't have to have an abortion.

so you make the equivalence between a person actively attacking and stangling another adult that has NO dependence on the first person for their survival whatsoever, to a 15 year old aborting a 3 week old fetus which is currently residing in HER body COMPLETELY dependent on HER for its existence. In essence you are saying you think its ok to hold all these women prisoners of their own biology. I cant accept that myself. Certainly not on the level of legislation.

There other people that completley depend on others to help live their life. People who need a blood donor depend on someone with the same blood type to give blood and their are other examples.

[inked]

UMMMMMmmm,

Does anyone really intend that all dependent persons of pre-born, post-born, and impoverished childhood, adolescence, and adulthood ages be quashed because their standard of living ('quality of life') is inadequate?

Let's put contraception in the water supply and only give antidotes to people who have a highschool education (allowed one child) or college education (allowed 2 children) or and additional degree (one more child per degree) PER COUPLE. That way, no one would be unprovided for, right!?

If that's not restrictive enough, maybe we should base it on income levels: you can have a child only if your aggregate income is geater than 50k post-tax dollars per annum per couple?

What exactly do the defenders of abortion as a means of preserving "quality of life" intend as an adequate "quality of life"? Bear in mind that the aborted embryo/fetus/baby has ZERO quality of life as it was TERMINATED.

Why should reproduction NOT be controlled?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Let's put contraception in the water supply and only give antidotes to people who have a highschool education (allowed one child) or college education (allowed 2 children) or and additional degree (one more child per degree) PER COUPLE. That way, no one would be unprovided for, right!?

Hmm, interesting train of thought ... and if a parent loses their job, kill off a kid every 6 months or so? *strikes a thoughtful pose*â„¢





â„¢(courtesy of Janny)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by inked

UMMMMMmmm,

Does anyone really intend that all dependent persons of pre-born, post-born, and impoverished childhood, adolescence, and adulthood ages be quashed because their standard of living ('quality of life') is inadequate?

Let's put contraception in the water supply and only give antidotes to people who have a highschool education (allowed one child) or college education (allowed 2 children) or and additional degree (one more child per degree) PER COUPLE. That way, no one would be unprovided for, right!?

If that's not restrictive enough, maybe we should base it on income levels: you can have a child only if your aggregate income is geater than 50k post-tax dollars per annum per couple?

What exactly do the defenders of abortion as a means of preserving "quality of life" intend as an adequate "quality of life"? Bear in mind that the aborted embryo/fetus/baby has ZERO quality of life as it was TERMINATED.

Why should reproduction NOT be controlled?

Well why should people who are rich have more piveledges than those who are poor. I'd prefer my parents to be poor and loving than rich and ignorant.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

GONG! Sooo-rry! Go back to American Government Class, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200!

You really surprise me.

congress passes laws and the supreme court decides whether or not those laws fit in with the other laws of the land... if they seem to contradict the constitution, they are overturned... that's what the roe v. wade judges thought, and it is probably still what a majority (not just one) of the court thinks today... that said, congress is allowed to pass the same laws over again and again, even if the supreme court has tossed them out before, in hopes that future judges interpret them differently... or, if the idea is held by an overwhelming majority, a constitutional amendment can be proposed

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

With war, there was intent and action for wrong on the part of the entity that we declare war on (or at least it's presented/interpreted that way, and OKed for that reason - war is never started because someone just "felt like it"), and thus the entity is eligible for an action that society has deemed appropriate. And unfortunately, those that are responsible in the entity won't all congregate into one place so we can deal with only them; often, they use innocents as shields. A side effect of evil intent and action is that innocents are hurt.

With abortion, there is NO intent or action for wrong on anyone's part, esp. the baby, so there is no REASON that the baby should have its life taken.

I can fully understand that some people think that a fetus is not a person; I do NOT agree that those that are against abortion must necessarily be against war or capital punishment to be logically consistent.

You may not agree, but do you see what I'm saying?

you are saying that making war for a very good reason justifies that fact that innocents will be killed... which i agree with

this was my main point... that almost everyone agrees that innocents can be sacrificed if the reason is good enough

i am saying that performing abortions for a very good reason justifies the fact that an innocent will be killed in many people's eyes

you might very well make the argument that "there is no reason good enough to justify abortion"... but this is quite different then saying "we should never take an innocent life" (though some, like the roman catholic pope, take this stance)

[azalea]

A few points:

Fenir, taking a moderate stance on the abortion issue doesn't automatically make someone a conservative on every issue.

A third trimester fetus is in no way just a "group of cells."

I think implying that anyone here thinks that women are merely baby incubators is insulting.

I am not for banning abortions outright, and I think the people who are are in the minority. I think most of us just want reasonable restrictions on abortions, just like a lot of us want reasonable restrictions on guns.

A question: a lot of the "pro-lifers" have said there are plenty of situations where abortion is a reasonable option. Are there any pro-choice people who think there are any situations where abortion shouldn't be allowed?
Assume no slippery slope on either side. Isn't any "pro-choicer" for restricting abortions in certain situations?

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by azalea

A few points:

Fenir, taking a moderate stance on the abortion issue doesn't automatically make someone a conservative on every issue.

A third trimester fetus is in no way just a "group of cells."

I think implying that anyone here thinks that women are merely baby incubators is insulting.

I am not for banning abortions outright, and I think the people who are are in the minority. I think most of us just want reasonable restrictions on abortions, just like a lot of us want reasonable restrictions on guns.

A question: a lot of the "pro-lifers" have said there are plenty of situations where abortion is a reasonable option. Are there any pro-choice people who think there are any situations where abortion shouldn't be allowed?
Assume no slippery slope on either side. Isn't any "pro-choicer" for restricting abortions in certain situations?

I am pro-choice, and can't think of a single situation where I would restrict abortions. Assuming the woman is willingly seeking out this remedy, is aware of the ramifications both physical and emotional, and decides to have the procedure anyway, I feel she should be able to have it.

In Fenir's defense, I have yet to meet a pro-life individual that I see eye-to-eye with on ANY other socio-economic or political issues. :shrug:

[inked]

Well, no one's brought up the spiritual aspects of abortion per se. What if any are the ramifications of abortion for Christians? Islamics? New Agers? Hindus? Buddhists? Taoists? ... and let's not leave out the atheists and agnostics?

If humanity contains a spiritual component, how does it figure in for the abortion seeker and the aborted embryo/fetus/baby?

[Rían]

Brownie - but you're still trying to lose my "intent" idea - I'd rephrase your line from "you are saying that making war for a very good reason justifies that fact that innocents will be killed... " to "you are saying that making war for a very good reason, intent being one necessary reason, justifies that fact that innocents will be killed... ". IOW, 'intent' may be a 'good reason', but it is also a required reason, so you can't just lose it in the 'good reason' category.

Kind of like if Fred killed someone, then even tho the dead body is still a dead body, regardless of Fred's intent, Fred can only be tried for first degree murder if there is intent. (or whatever the law is)

But that's enough on that

azalea - good posts!

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by azalea

A question: a lot of the "pro-lifers" have said there are plenty of situations where abortion is a reasonable option. Are there any pro-choice people who think there are any situations where abortion shouldn't be allowed?
Assume no slippery slope on either side. Isn't any "pro-choicer" for restricting abortions in certain situations?

*raises hand*

Abortion should be performed within a time limit. I'm against (what's the word again?) partial birth abortion. That is also forbidden by Belgian law, if you want to abort the fetus, you must do so before a certain time, I forget how long. It's also more dangerous for your health, I believe, if you abort in a later term.

And if you have carried the fetus that long and waited that long before you can make the decision whether or not to abort, I think you might as well go through with it completely and give birth to the child.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Do you believe that convenience (by my definition; see my second post on Page 1) is sufficient reason to kill adult humans?

youd have to redifine your definition of convenience again here. you posted a ton on that first page and mentioned convenience but i didnt actually find where you defined it. maybe i missed it.

if you are asking me if i think its just fine for someone to get an abortion because having a kid would hamper their party life style well i think thats thoroughly digusting. and i HAVE known a young woman who got an abortion because she was "young and had her whole life ahead of her and didnt like kids" and let me tell you I certainly disagreed with her attitude and today we are no longer friends really. So dont simply assume Im a cheerleader for abortion or something. I think its a horribly sad horribly tragic thing that should be avoided if it all possible. but i CANT say i have any right to tell a woman what she can or cant do with her own body. this is truly a rock and a hard place issue to me. its not a win or lose one at all. its lose lose basically.

To avoid social, economic or emotional hardship, would you kill me?

then who would i have to debate with. No i personally wouldnt kill you for most any reason. But then I personally wouldnt have an abortion either. thats my CHOICE. But I cant make that choice for someone else. And neither can you. That needs to be up to them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I would say that both are as bad as eachother. If you don't want or can't take care of the child then why not put it up for adoption? That way a couple who can't have children or who don't want to go through the pregnancy stage can have a child and the 15 year old drug addict has no child to take cae of but hasn't killed an innocent being.

compasionate thoughts of course. and well spoken. but in reality thousands and thousands of women in this situation do NOT have such simple straight forward options. if your life is such a mess that you can barely keep yourself alive then what are the odds for your offspring having a quality pregnancy and childhood? if you are addicted to drugs and you get pregnant chances are you arent going to stop taking drugs. do you know what that does to a developing fetus? and if adoption was such an easy solution we wouldnt have half way houses filled with young abandoned children. unfortunately many people who adopt are "shopping" for a particular variety of child if you will and this leaves many many unlucky children without hope and destined to slip through the cracks, abondoned by a society that insisted it be brought to term. as i stated before, for many pro lifers, once the fetus has been saved and brought to term and born it immediately becomes "the problem" or "the enemy". a double standard Ive always found unbelievable. but millions happily justify this kind of duel thinking to themselves without a problem.

I agree that not everyone can be adopted but not everyone aborts either. It doesn't have to be adoption. They could put their child into care to be fostered or a willing realative could take care of the child. There are other options that mean you don't have to have an abortion.

more well intentioned compasionate thinking on your part. and thats commendable. but unfortunately, again in this world we live in you cant save everyone. in fact a WHOLE lot of people will get lost through the cracks and become utter failure stories live horrible lives and die anyway. and you have to ask yourself is it better that their mother be forced to bear them for nine months, have them grow up miserable and abandoned and then have them die anyway, fully conscious and aware of their plight OR is it better to stop their development long before they become a conscious organism destined for a hopeless life? Youre right its a horrible choice either way.

There other people that completley depend on others to help live their life. People who need a blood donor depend on someone with the same blood type to give blood and their are other examples.

Yes but I think abortion deals with the relatively unique situation of having a life form growing within another body. You cant really make an analogy to that. it would be GREAT if we had the technology to take out a fetus even at its earliest stage with no obtrusive surgery and sustain that potential life in another location so the woman no longer was being held hostage by the pregnancy. but unfortunately we dont have that ability. so in the end we are forced to choose between stripping away the rights of an adult woman for the potential life of some cells in her own body OR terminating this potential life based on needs/whims/issues of the fully grown fully conscious. Again, no good choices at all.

[inked]

The whole concept of a woman being held hostage to a pregnancy is vast overstatement and purely emotional rhetoric. Exactly the sort of emotional language decried by pro-abortionists when the life inside the womb is called a baby or child.

IF, and that's a big IF, women would exercise contraception options, and IF their partners would exercise contraceptive options, no one would be held hostage! One should as well say that the embryo is hostage to the pregnant female - but unequipped to do anything about it!

It is natural that sexual relations result in pregnancy unless steps are take to prevent it. Let's move out of stone age thought processes. Where in nature does inter-gender sex not result in reproduction? Where an animal endowed with the ability to understand and deal with consequences BEFORE engaging in intercourse takes appropriate precautions! Which animal is that? Only humans, so far as we know.

Which animal routinely fails to so do and then kills the product of lack of forethought? Right! Humans.

Anybody else see a break between the sapiens component of our classification and this behaviour?