Abortion and Handguns

[Lizra]

I don't agree! I do blame some entertainment. Things have just gotten worse each decade, sex sells and some in the entertainment business cram it down young peoples throats, not caring what effect it has. Young people are very impresionable, and are easy prey to the "if they are doing it, maybe I should be be doing it" mindset. Many don't have excellent family communication situations! (I know I sure didn't!) It also makes our society look bad! Just my opinion!

[LuthienTinuviel]

can i shoot myself with a .22?
(this was an edit.)

[Lizra]

I certainly understand what you are saying LT. But situations can change, It's hard to acurately predict what will be. You just never know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I don't agree! I do blame some entertainment. Things have just gotten worse each decade, sex sells and some in the entertainment business cram it down young peoples throats, not caring what effect it has. Young people are very impreshionable, and are easy prey to the "if they are doing it, maybe I should be be doing it" mindset. Many don't have excellent family communication situations! (I know I sure didn't!) It also makes our society look bad! Just my opinion!

The entertainment industries sole purpose - is to entertain and make money. Just like the sole person of sports stars is to play sports. They're not in the business to raise other people's children.

If the majority of people are upset with something - they won't watch the shows. People have a free choice in what to watch - I agree that much of it shouldn't be seen by children. I also agree that it's difficult for single parents or even two parents to control or know what their child is doing 24/7. It is still the parents responsibility though. Not schools, not TV, not music, not sports stars, but parents.

It's society that has made the Bachelor and Survivor such big hits. The entertainment industy isn't making people watch these shows - people are voluntarily watching them - even though all they are about is back stabbing, lying and using people. When parents find this stuff funny and entertaining - they raise their children to find this stuff funny and entertaining.

[LuthienTinuviel]

nothing is perfect.

like the entire world.

(edit)

[crickhollow]

who died and made you god, that you may choose who lives and who dies? Ideally, each child would be born into a loving, two-parent, wealthy family, but that is not the case. Would you line up all potential mothers, whip out their charts, and on a case-by-case basis send them either to the right (abortion clinic), or to the left (women's hospital)? Some of the greatest men and women civilization has ever known overcame immense odds, and accomplished great things. "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement, LuthienTinuviel."

[Lief Erikson]

Precisely. I do understand your argument, Luthien-Tinuviel, but we simply don't have the right to make that sort of decision for a child.

why would you choose a long torturus route by "saving" that baby's life, rather than just ending it before it would ever experince the gross horrors that some not-so- fortunate people face?

Life is full of pain and trials for every person. Killing these people might prevent them from being forced into future pain, as you say. But it is not for us to decide. They have to be able to make their own decisions, and be themselves. There will be happiness in their lives as well as pain, just as there is in all of ours. Because there is a preponderance of one doesn't mean that it won't change in the future. Some of the people who were brought up in those situations are the greatest fighters against it happening anymore (although I don't think their stance is to simply kill people who were like them).

The only way you can get away with abortion is to dehumanize the child by deciding that they aren't a child yet. Either that, or you have to be a massively inflated ego and think that you're God. If someone is in pain or will be, that doesn't give someone else the right to murder them, "For their own good."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
you have to be a massively inflated ego and think that you're God.

I must have a massively inflated ego.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
You know what really bothers me about the views of people that are against abortion? And before I start, let me just say that I respect those views, and eventhough I don't agree with their opinion, I will defend to the death their right to have it. I expect the same.

Now to answer my own question with a question. Why is it that anti-abortionists who stand out in front of women's clinics protesting and trying to interfere with the free choice of these women, are never there after they have convined the woman to have the baby. Once that baby is born the anti abortionists go back into the wood work. They don't want to concern themselves with the liives of that mother and baby once it is here.

Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby? Are any of you that support having that baby ready to step in and make their lives better and help them? Don't give me the answer that there is always adoption. After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye. On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had.

Answers please. Change my mind if you can. Convince me that I am wrong.

I do agree that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, though I think that varying opinions on abortion are some of the hardest NOT to take personally (for all involved). It's a very touchy issue.

Actually, some centers do help the woman and her child after the child's birth. But now that you will mention it, I will find a local center that does this and find out if I can do volunteer work there in some capacity. Thank you for effectively challenging me to do this.

Most anti-abortionists do not go out and bomb abortion clinics, though obviously there are some who do. If these bombers were careful to make sure there are no people in the clinics when they strike -- it would still wrong, but at least they could say they were trying to respect the sanctity of life. Bombing abortion clinics with people in them is evil and there is no excuse for doing it. I am ashamed that people who profess to believe in the sanctity of life believe they should destroy more lives.

I'd say a girl of 14 shouldn't become pregnant in the first place, but if she does, then yes, she should have the baby. I believe that the fetus is a living person, not to be deprived of life for the reason that living longer might not be "best" for him/her. Of course, I realize that the 14 year old girl would be alone and scared, and I would hardly be surprised by her getting an abortion, especially if no one DID offer to help her and her child after the baby's birth.
If I knew about a situation where a young mother needed support, and I could help, I would, at least if the mother would allow me to do so. I'm not sure all teenage mothers would even accept help in supporting their children.

Doesn't it seem somewhat selfish to kill your child because you don't want to have to say goodbye later on?
Some women do "miss something they never had." And if they change their minds after the abortion and wish they'd kept the baby, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm sorry, jerseydevil, Luthien-Tinuviel, but I just can't understand how someone could do an abortion, while knowing that the child is alive and is a child. If you think of it simply as organic tissue that doesn't have life yet, then you can justify your destroying it to protect another life (The mother). If, however, you know that this is a living person, I don't understand how you can condone murder. You can't murder someone because you think they'll probably be miserable later on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm sorry, jerseydevil, Luthien-Tinuviel, but I just can't understand how someone could do an abortion, while knowing that the child is alive and is a child. If you think of it simply as organic tissue that doesn't have life yet, then you can justify your destroying it to protect another life (The mother). If, however, you know that this is a living person, I don't understand how you can condone murder. You can't murder someone because you think they'll probably be miserable later on.

Basically if you look my posts throughout this thread, you'd see that I basically think of them as a clump of cells (organic matter) until they're nervous system and brain start functioning.

[jerseydevil]

Court blocks Indiana abortion law requiring in-person counseling

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- A federal appeals court blocked an Indiana abortion law that would require women to get face-to-face counseling before having an abortion.

The stay Thursday by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago keeps the state law from going into effect at least until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear a challenge of it.

The law, passed in 1995, has never taken effect.

In September, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found the law constitutional, and the court was expected on November 5 to let the law take effect. With a day to spare, however, attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy requested the stay.

The New York City-based center has until December 16 to file its appeal with the nation's high court.

The law requires most women seeking abortions to be counseled in person about risks and alternatives at least 18 hours before the procedure. The counseling generally must happen in the presence of a physician or nurse.

Currently, women can obtain such information over the telephone.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

I personally do not believe that these people are true 'pro-lifers'. You're right, it's completely hypocritical, wrong and just...stupid. People that bomb abortion clinics are far worse than any person who has or performs abortions.

Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby?... Don't give me the answer that there is always adoption. After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye.

You cannot honestly say that a 14 year old girl should have a baby, I'm not going to argue. But, it is possible for both the baby AND the mother to live a good life, without adoption. My family is living proof of this. No, it is not easy to say good bye, and I recently discovered that my mother is completely against adoption.

On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had

Then why do so many girls who have abortions feel guilty or upset after they've done so? It is possible to miss something you never had. And they DID have the baby, for some period of time.

About my comment earlier in the thread...eahh...I do'nt know where that came from.

[Lief Erikson]

Aha, so you do dehumanize it (Sorry for coining that term, I know it sounds awful). However, you are still making decisions for an individual (Or potential future individual) that you have no right to make.

If you're a wealthy and influential person in a bank, and I was planning to enter into the bank, you wouldn't have the right to cut me off from entering it simply because you thought I'd be making life miserable for myself and everyone else. I'm not in the bank yet, so cutting me off from entering doesn't harm me so much. Nevertheless, it still isn't a decision that you have any right to make. How do you know that I won't make friends with everyone around me and rise to a prominent position? And even if I didn't and you're right about the misery that would be caused- how do you know that it won't end up going well. Twenty or fifteen years after I enter I might be very thankful that I did. You don't have the right to stop me from success simply because you don't think it'll work, or because it damages your own interests. Doing that is selfish and presumptuous.

We're talking about a human life though; I was simply talking about a business position. That's a very small example to demonstrate a very big point. Thirty years from now, the individual who was aborted could have been having a very happy in life and a blessing to all around him/her. Things might have started out stormy or painful, but in no individual's life is there nothing at all but darkness (I think), and if there are any such situations, they are few and far between, and we have no way of knowing for certain whether this would be one of them.

[Nibs]

Hmm... very interesting thoughts here. Now here's a good question to ask yourselves:

What would I do?

If I were a wedded or unwed expecting mother, I could either focus on my own goals, decide the times not right (etc., etc.) and decide to abort the child or instead accept responsibility for my actions and have the child and either give him up for adoption or give him the best life I can offer. I like to think I'd choose the latter.

If I were a wedded or unwed expecting mother from causes of rape, I could either abort the child, knowing full well that it was not because of my own choices and I have no responsibility for the actions of another person to me. I'd realize the child will never know the father, because I'd never known the father. How could I possibly raise him properly in this environment (etc., etc.)?

On the other hand, I could carry the child as a normal one, give him up for adoption or raise him as best as I can and possibly tell him the truth when he's old enough.

This choice is more difficult... and this hypothetical situation has altered my opinion... once again, I like to think that I'd choose the latter. I admit, it's the more difficult route, but the one I could live with more comfortably.

[Lief Erikson]

On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had

That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.

You're right - I also don't think it's your job to be telling a woman to do with her body before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Even then I don't think you should be the one deciding - I think society should decide. And society seems to generally be against partial birth abortion - except under extreme circumstances.

I have never said kill a baby because it may not have a good life - so I don't even know how I got dragged into this. I feel it's the mother's choice though.

[Starr Polish]

Before someone brings up the "teenagers aren't fit for motherhood" or "they have to have support, and a lot of them won't get it":

My mother was a teenage mother, with no support from her parents (I believe my father's parents helped though). She had my sister, and then me six years later. When I was two she went back to school and eventually became an RN. My parents were married, but they got divorced when I was young. Right now my mother works at the WIC center (Women Infant Children) as the 'head' nurse and we live in an average middle-class home. She's not perfect, no one is. My sister turned out just fine, she is now twenty-two and has a job at a law firm. I'm sure her case is fairly rare but it proves that it is NOT impossible to lead a happy life if you have children young.

True, she hasn't gotten to do everything she wanted when she was young, but who does?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You're right - I also don't think it's your job to be telling a woman to do with her body before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Even then I don't think you should be the one deciding - I think society should decide. And society seems to generally be against partial birth abortion - except under extreme circumstances.

I have never said kill a baby because it may not have a good life - so I don't even know how I got dragged into this. I feel it's the mother's choice though.

I was largely answering Luthien-Tinuviel's statement.

I feel that the parent(s) of a child should make most of the major decisions for that child. Whether they live or die is where I draw the line, though.

The argument is basically the same as whether a mother should have a child at all. Now a woman has the ability to choose when, where and how she is going to bear her child. This doesn't make her obligated to bear a child, simply because she can. Once the child is conceived, you're saying that it still (Since the child isn't alive) is a decision that the mother should make, the same as in the beginning, as to whether or not she's going to have a child. On the surface, this ability of the mother to choose makes sense. But now we come to a difference in the situations. In one case, we're simply taking no action to make a child alive. In the other, we're taking action to prevent a child from being alive. What the intentions or reasons of the mother are is immaterial, for now we get to a moral issue, whether or not the mother has the right to choose. Earlier she did, but now the thing has happened, whether she wanted it to or not, and she'll be taking a step to prevent a life from being lived. And this is where I draw the line, that the mother in this case doesn't have the right to choose what's best for herself and her child. What's best for herself is selfish (However good her reasons are, we're still talking about a human life here), and what's best for the child she can't know, for she isn't God.

[Elvellon]

That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.

The question if it is already human, or not, is the crucial question. It certainly isn’t a straightforward moral issue as you may be implying. It all comes to your beliefs, what defines an undifferentiated group of cells as a human being?

If you accept the idea that it is because “it” has a soul, then, since you can’t prove the existence of the soul, one position is as morally acceptable as the other. It becomes a matter of your belief, not of facts, that define your position.

If it is because you believe it has the potentiality to be human, then still the concept is debatable. Future Rights are not widely acceptable concept, and besides, one can argue that the conflicting rights of a existing human being and the rights of something that may become one are not of the same degree (assuming that one accepts, for the moment, the concept of Future Rights).