Abortion - your views.

[RioDragon]

Quite right, I'm not denying that said foetus will become a baby. However condoms, the pill, and a vasectomy all prevent a life from being created, so they are equally as bad as abortion?

No, I wouldn't quite say that, as, as you said, they can prevent pregnancy from even happening. You should just be ready to bite the bullet in cases where those methods don't work so well.

When I was speaking of abstinence, what I said was meant for the unmarried. As pregnancy would most likely screw up their lives in some way. (Even than, you have to make sure you can really trust who you marry, with the way some men/women are.)

I agree, it's not our decision.
However if I did get a chick pregnant, I would tell her what I wanted. Not to force her to do what I said, but because deciding to have an abortion or not to, is a big decision. Actually, no I wouldn't tell her what I wanted to happen. I'd agree with her, as ultimately it is her decision.

Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I think that all foetuses should be aborted.

*nods* Yeah, that's understandable. I'm still more of a pro-lifer myself though, but it does come down to the woman in the grand scheme. Though I still think it'd be a huge, honest mistake if she said she wanted a baby before she got pregnant and suddenly decided afterwards she didn't want it just because of unavoidable pain, which is sort of a no-brainer.

As I've said before... I'm more of a romantic type of guy. About the only reason I'd have a relationship in the first place would be the prospect of marrying and raising a family with her. So, I've course I'd be defensive against abortion. Because, from my viewpoint, I can't understand why someone would support it. Even after an abortion happens, the mother herself may experience complications all her life.

I don't like seeing people in pain under any circumstances... But typically, the pain of giving birth to a child doesn't last all of one's life.

As you've said before, I'm no doctor, and I'm only 18. But those articles above sorta covered that.

 

[Icarus]

Next time please do not even JOKE about being a rapist. My little brother was somewhat abused by my neighbor's kid. They shoved a hose into his tailbone and I have even more of an attitude towards rapists now.
And Placebo, while the fetus isn't as "human" as you or me, if you wait until it's ready to come out, then it would be considered "semi-killing" I guess. And what happens when it IS out? It would be killing.
I am not against ALL abortions, but if a family cannot handle another mouth to feed or if the baby dies in the womb, only then should an abortion be performed.
And if a baby comes unexpected as a result of careless sex, the woman should have the baby. It was her fault she did it, so she should bear the responsibility of a baby instead of taking the easy way out.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

If I could shift the topic for one moment...

What do you all think about Partial birth abortions. Surely you cant deny thats not baby killing(yes im against partial birth abortions).

- Kuja

 

[der Astronom]

If that's what I think that is, surely, you don't think they happen for a good reason. It's probably because either the mother dies or the kid dies--which do you think is worse; a childless "mother", who couldn't have been much of a mother to begin with, or a kid who has no mother, who probably isn't guaranteed a guardian, and might later find out that his or her mother died?

Why don't you tell us the point of asking us this question?

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

If that's what I think that is, surely, you don't think they happen for a good reason. It's probably because either the mother dies or the kid dies--which do you think is worse; a childless "mother", who couldn't have been much of a mother to begin with, or a kid who has no mother, who probably isn't guaranteed a guardian, and might later find out that his or her mother died?

Why don't you tell us the point of asking us this question?

Umm Karl, I fail to see the reasoning behind this response.

I asked this question because a Partial Birth Abortion, is an Abortion, and from what I've seen, it hasn't been covered yet. Its just something to think about really. I'm not Pro-Life ,which I think you have led to believe, however I don't think that partial birth abortions are ok. An argument can surely be made that a foetus/fetus/w/e isn't alive or whatever, however during a partial birth abortion, they take out the baby, and I believe they saw its head off, its very sad, and disgusting to think about .

Your question about a mother dieing, is obviously a loaded question, and wasn't really needed to begin with, but I do think every child needs a parent. But that has nothing to do with my question, unless the woman found out 6 months into pregnancy the baby shes carrying could kill her. I don't think deciding after the baby forms that you simply "dont want it" then have a partial birth abortion, that is killing, aborting a foetus/fetus/?? to me isn't killing. Like I've stated, people make mistakes, its what makes us human after all, if two people have unprotected sex, and the girl winds up pregnant, get to teh abortion clinic *arnold voice*!

Anyway thats why I brought it up.

- Kuja

 

[aerocrystal]

Actually, the reason why abortions because of rape are so low could be because it's actually very hard to get pregnant from being raped. It's a very low chance. Your body behaves differently and is more accepting physically and chemically to semen if you want the sex you're having.

This actually makes sense from an evolutionary stand point. A baby is more likely to survive with two parents, especially if you consider that the vast majority of human history was spent as nomadic hunter-gatherers. A rapist is probably not going to stick around for a baby, therefore it is not a viable reproduction strategy for men to rape women.


Unprotected, a woman has about a one in four chance of becoming pregnant.

I am pro-choice....my reasons have already been reiterated numerous times throughout this thread by other people.

 

[Erythritol]

Why the hate eryth =P.

I'm not hating on you. Just pointing out the hideous, gaping flaws in your argument

Again...like I said in my post, I support a womans right to choose, however I just dont like the argument presented, for that I dont consider myself Pro-Choice, that was unneccesary. With the shooting up thing, I didnt say any campaigns have campaigned for the right to shoot up(i dont know where you got that from ), It was an example to contradict the point about being able to do whatever you want with your body.

Wow, that's a pretty shitty counter-argument. Pro-choice people NEVER tried to argue that people should be able to do anything and everything to their bodies. That you even tried to insinuate that with your heroin example is both erroneous and makes you look foolish and ill-informed. The argument is purely about allowing a woman to abort a fetus without any legal repercussions. It is not about being able to whatever they want to their bodies. Stay on topic.

If anybody is making incorrect leaps in logic its you, I'm on your side, and your here insulting me without due cause...Oh yeah and I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm Pro-Common Sense, If a woman wants an abortion I honestly dont see anything wrong with it, but to say I can do whatever I want with my own body doesnt hold any ground. Otherwise suicide wouldn't be illegal, or euthanasia.

I frankly don't care what side you're on. Your argument is sloppy and filled with strange and illogical jumping to conclusions. Again, I see you're bringing something completely irrelevant into this debate (aka: the idea of being able to do whatever you want with your body). Seriously, if you want to debate the ethics of that, start another thread. We're discussing abortion in here.

LOL, little angry aren't we? I never said there were 31 million abortions in the U.S, that number is WORLDWIDE, not in the U.S, maybe you should use common sense, or read what I say, moving on...

LOL, learn to read. Maybe if you did, you'd notice that you said "total" and the counter you linked to was-- rather unshockingly-- not labeled. So "total" what? Total worldwide or total national? You never said, so I was free to assume either. I assumed the latter. Next time be more specific.

More insults huh...do you think I'm stupid or something? The best contraceptive technique is...Abstinence! aka not having sex. Whether you like it or not woman out there using abortion as a birth control method. Quit living under your rock.

Actually, I was being pretty civil before, but now I'm just pulling out all the stops. And yes, I do think you're stupid So is making completely unsubstantiated claims fun? Because that's, well, sorta what you're doing. Abortions are seriously harmful to a woman's health. If you have too many (read: maybe 3?), you don't have to worry about getting pregnant anymore because it will leave you sterile. Hmm, now let's think of birth control methods that are a) cheaper b) less harmful and c) have less of a social stigma attached to them. The pill, condoms, Plan B, just to name a few. Now, faced with these options, you think women are going to choose abortion as their birth control method? The only one living under a rock here is you.

Sure:http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/01/taxpayer-funding-for-maryland-abortions.html

http://www.newsmax.com/boone/abortion/2008/06/23/106790.html

Ill look for more later, in the mean time, be a lil nicer to me, I'm on your side .

- Kuja

Wow, what's something those links have in common? Hmm, let's think about it. Why, they're both hideously biased sources! One is from a pro-life blog and the other is from a conservative Republican site. I guess in my little source lecture from last time, I forgot to mention that the source should be unbiased. Yeah, that one is really important. And those sources-- I hate to break it to you-- are REALLY, REALLY biased. OH HEY! Look what I found from a credible and non-biased (in describing how the government funds abortions) source:

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html

Oh shit, that kind of tramples your argument all to hell, doesn't it? Oops And as a VERY CONCERNED tax payer, read this part with care:

"Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services"

Now, on to some more comments. A lot of what I read just made me shake my head. I really hope that most people here know that in order to make a baby, both a woman AND a man have to be involved. Unless there's a turkey baster. But I digress. I saw an argument that said that the woman should take responsiblity for her actions and keep the baby. So it's ALL her fault, and thus, she should ruin her life by having an unwanted child. Because clearly she was the only one involved. Bullshit

As for partial birth abortion: interesting that you call it that. That's what the pro-lifers call it. The procedure's real name is intact dilation and evacuation (aka: the medical name). Personally, I believe it should only be performed if the woman's life is in danger. I don't believe there is any other excuse for such an operation. However, I think it's a little useless to debate the use of such a method of abortion, as it accounts for approximately 0.17% of all abortions.

 

[Bun]

In a partial birth abortion, the baby is not technically delivered as they only birth the body up to the neck. The baby will be breech (feet first) so that they can perform the PBA with its head still in the mother. (It gets a bit graphic here; those for the faint of heart please don't read on)

Spoiler

At that point, the doctor will then take a pair of surgical scissors and force the point into the base of the skull/top of the neck and into the brain and then open the blades of the scissors. If this does not kill the baby, they will take a suction tube and put it into the hole they made with the scissors to suck out the brain.

I surely do not support this kind of method of abortion UNLESS the baby is not going to live outside the womb and will probably die within a couple hours of its birth, and or the mother's life is in danger. If you're going to wait that long to get an abortion to a baby that would otherwise be healthy, then perhaps someone should

Spoiler

be sticking scissors into your brain stem.

>_>

 

[Donald Trump]

Yes, but in hindsight if you look back now and think "what if I was aborted?". Would you be happy with the possibility that you could have been? Just because they don't have thoughts yet doesn't mean they won't eventually.. They do in fact become fully fledged human beings.

Did you know that if your parents had sex one millisecond later, you wouldn't have been born? That the same applies to your grandparents, great grandparents and so on and so forth. This makes wondering whether he possibly could have been aborted incredibly stupid.
I'm secure enough in my own existence that the thought I wouldn't have been born doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Ok, can we stop with the heartless comparisons of developing humans please? Cancer, parasites, ticks, anoying little cell duplications, alien invaders.. Please whatever you want to call it to desensitise it, it IS a developing human being, so please take note of that. A developing human being will one day be born, and become a full human being, just like you and me. Interesting huh?

If you agree to stop with the hypocrisy. It is a foetus, not a human being. If we are going to call foetuses developing humans then we must call sperm potential human beings, and women become environments for the creation and development of human beings. Semantics are irrelevant, you can BAWW about how you think we the word foetus is desensitising, but at the end of the day, that's your problem not ours.
Try to stay on topic.

I was actually being less than serious in my comment. I did read your post, and I just feel that it is a weak comeback... The truth is we don't know what life a child will live. Likewise we don't know if they are to become a genius or not, and that argument is equally as silly. BUT simple life things, such as family and freinds of the child, the childs impact on the world around it... Beleive it or not, we all leave an impact. Even losers like me leave an impression on the world. Kill a child before its birth and all of that will be lost. And also all of the experiences that human would have had would never happen. The human won't be able to enjoy life aspects, or hate parts of life as well.. It won't be able to experience anything. It is being denied its right to leave its mark in the world.

I disagree, very few of us have any impact in the world, you may feel you have left your mark, but that is entirely subjective. The whole " THE KID COULD BE THE NEXT MLK" is fucking stupid, which is whar Katsky was saying.

Not the fault of the childs I'm afraid. The developing baby is completely innocent in this matter, and killing it just because one isn't ready for it doesn't seem a good enough excuse... It IS a life, or a life to be.

So what if it's not the foetuses fault. It wasn't the fault of kids playing in Hiroshima on the 6th of August 1945, but they died. Innocent people ( People, not foetuses) die all the time. What is your point?

You still haven't answered my question.
since you are against abortion because it prevents a potential human life, then you must also be against any other form of contraception? Amirite?

 

[Scarlet]

Yes, but in hindsight if you look back now and think "what if I was aborted?". Would you be happy with the possibility that you could have been? Just because they don't have thoughts yet doesn't mean they won't eventually.. They do in fact become fully fledged human beings.

And I'm sure many people think: "God I wish I was aborted. I wish I was dead." A little cluster of cells doesn't have a mind btw.

Ok, can we stop with the heartless comparisons of developing humans please? Cancer, parasites, ticks, anoying little cell duplications, alien invaders.. Please whatever you want to call it to desensitise it, it IS a developing human being, so please take note of that. A developing human being will one day be born, and become a full human being, just like you and me. Interesting huh?

I hate to break it to you but it is a parasite. A parasite that is feeding off of a mother's body.

I could say the same thing about kids who are mentally retarded. They're parasites to the human race. They just feed off and not give back. Btw, my little brother is mentally retarded. I rather see him be aborted than alive. Suffering through a life without love by another person, without enjoying what other people do, and having friends. He doesn't have friends nor a girlfriend, and never will. He'll never ever be able to enjoy life as a normal human being. He'll never have the experiences that we do.

He's also very aggressive and costing my parents quiet a lot of money. Ohh lets say in medical bills, breaking stuff (he broke two new laptops btw), and now my dad needs to repair the septic tank because of his use of water. Not only that but YEARS of depression my mom went through. If I were to find out my child was going to have down syndrome I would abort. You may call me a heartless bitch but I'm not going to suffer dealing with another mentally child in my life.

I was actually being less than serious in my comment. I did read your post, and I just feel that it is a weak comeback... The truth is we don't know what life a child will live. Likewise we don't know if they are to become a genius or not, and that argument is equally as silly. BUT simple life things, such as family and freinds of the child, the childs impact on the world around it... Beleive it or not, we all leave an impact. Even losers like me leave an impression on the world. Kill a child before its birth and all of that will be lost. And also all of the experiences that human would have had would never happen. The human won't be able to enjoy life aspects, or hate parts of life as well.. It won't be able to experience anything. It is being denied its right to leave its mark in the world.

An impact? How often do you hear a poor person having an impact on the world? It's very rare. Sorry, RICH people impact the world. People who have lots of money are the ones who impact the world. How often do you hear a person from the mid-west helping poor kids in Africa? NEVER.

Not to mention we have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLLONS of people living on this planet. You're telling me you care about the lives of unborn babies!? Don't give me that bullshit. How about we help feed the poor children of thrid world countries first!? We're slowly running out of sources. Okay, yeah, like we need more people. Actually what we need is a war to kill off some of the world's population. Talk to me when were desperately in need of food and water.

 

[Enrage The Sky]

I'm gonna make this short.

I'm pro-choice, i beleave that if you make a mistake you should be able to fix it. Also, say you get forced to do that, I think you should have to ability to get rid of the baby. I think you shouldn't wait till its bassically born at least almost, I wouldn't want it to have eyes or arms when someone has an abortion.

 

[Pauk]

I'm half and half. I'm pro-choice in that I don't think it's right to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't do with their body. If abortion is illegal then mothers who want to abort can do it themselves with DIY techniques but at much greater personal risk, so the choice should be out there. But at the same time, I think whatever can be done to avoid unneccessary abortions is important too, and if my girlfriend was going to have an abortion I don't think I'd want that.

As for the moral implication of murder, I don't think that's applicable for early abortions. If that counts as murder then artificial insemination is a genocide. Dozens of embryos are produced for the one that's inserted, and those are thrown away without a second thought. Afterall, if someone was in a fire and could only save either a container of 10,000 embryos or a person, they'd save the person no questions asked. Potential life shouldn't be considered simply as life.

Once organs have formed, that's when abortion enters the grey area for me. Plenty of pregnancies fail early on anyway, so I have no problem with aborting a sack of cells, but when it starts to resemble a human it's unavoidably emotive. At the same time, it's not yet a person (i.e. it doesn't yet have a conscious mind that is aware of self), as tempting as it might be to treat it as one. But then again, babies don't develop an awareness of self until a couple of months after birth, so that arguments a difficult one too.

In the end it's always going to be a delicate subject erring on the side of life or death, but it's always safest to err on the side of life in fear of making any mistakes in future.

 

[der Astronom]

Aye yes, a metaphor. But to me it wasn't a very good one. Didn't quite get where you were going. Perhaps because I can't detatch my view that a foetus is a growing human, developing into a full human, and so can't view it as a shell, case or machine like you are!

Well, back to that whole idea of us being born the same way--if I had died three months after conception, I wouldn't have known it. If I had been not even a fertilized egg, I wouldn't even have existed. If I had died a fetus, I wouldn't have died a human being, without the ability to think rationally or have feelings. Then we ask ourselves, do we have a reason to thank the people who let us live? Do we have a reason to demand that the people who made our existence possible should never have considered giving up on us before we were born? This all depends on how much of our lives we consider worth it. If I did not think life was worth living, why is there a reason to appreciate the fact that I exist, or that someone let me live? Why is there a reason to demand someone let me live when they would have let me suffer? There are some people who don't live such lives, so they don't see things that way, and others, such as myself, who do not care. Whether I had lived or died matters little to me. I am as I am because of what has happened before--if it did not happen or it was prevented from happening, then so be it; I don't exist. And I'm saying I don't care.

This is more than just an issue of science though, it is of morality as well. And besides I wasn't strictly being supernatural about it words like soul seem to just fly out of my mouth sometimes when trying to describe a human being and why we are different from a car! You know...

We are different from a car because we have 23 chromosomes and need a partner to reproduce. A car just needs a factory, and doesn't have the ability to whine or act irrational. You can describe the fact that people have feelings without saying they have a soul. In fact, I just did.

any human being we should feel the need to protect in time of need, especialy your own kin right?

My obligations are what I feel they should be; not what other people tell me they should be. It wouldn't be as altruistic as sacrificing my life for other people though. That's much too illogical. However, I am much too indifferent to care about protecting other people--unless I know who they are. Technically, that's supposed to mean the people I call my "kin", but that only means I know how good and how bad they are. There's another condition I would like to add to the people I protect--not only would I know them, but they have to be people I deem "worthy" of protecting. In other words, people I know who will benefit myself, my friends or mine or their interests. It may sound selfish, I know, but I can't be bothered to care when there are over 6 billion people on this planet.

The problem with automatically assuming you must treat your "kin" well because you know them is that you never got to choose them in the first place, just as you never got to choose your gender or your physical appearance.

A final comment though. There probably is a solution that won't involve sacrificing people. However, if I never found one in time, I would have to resort to what I explained above.

I actually tried to. Well, I did, but it's a hard subject to grasp I guess. At birth, anything is pure and innocent, as it hasn't had the chance to do bad deeds, right? That doesn't mean it has done good deeds, that would make you a hero, it just means that it is free from everything. That is innocent enough. Innocence isn't defined by doing good deeds, its by not doing bad deeds. Sure the young baby can't think etc, but they are still considered pure and innocent. They have yet to turn nasty if they were to, for example. Same applies to a foetus.

The point is, it can't make any choices. You can't ask it whether or not it wants to live or die; it wouldn't even understand such a concept; it's completely beyond such a being. In order for it to make such choices, perhaps it might have had feelings, but clearly, it does not; its nervous system simply isn't advanced enough for that.

Actually, I don't really care to know what kinds of things it could have done. The probability that it becomes another Gauss is extremely low. There have been three such people in the entire history of humanity, and now, no such people I know of exist. If it lives, it lives. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

I'm not to denying that there are evil people about, but I beleive we should all act reasonbly and humane to an extent with all people. Though we may not like them or agree with them.

The problem is that not all people regard a fetus or "developing life" as people. And this problem of not being able to objectively agree on what to consider life is the reason for disagreement. As long as it remains a subjective matter, it will never be resolved.

What? So I'm suddenly a priest?! Can't I just be a human being with a certain set of morals? And science does much to make us forget who we are. It's fine labelling anatomy, cells and peices of flesh, but science never quite gives us the answer of who we are, why we are, and what is the point of existing! All science has given you in this debate is a bunch of scientific terms to throw at people to put them off replying, that doesn't affect the heart and soul of the matter, realy.

That's great; then maybe science will help me forget how irrational people are. Just yesterday, I remember they were conducting that black hole test, and what did I say about probability; nothing happened. Apparently, it's been told that the probability of those occurrences was supposed to be about 1 in 10^24, and yet, people still panic. I probably would have been asleep at that time too, since my time zone is behind, which is all the better because I wouldn't have even felt it.

But more about science--never ever expect science to tell you what your purpose in life is. Science never has and never will be expected to explain morality because science is objective; morality isn't. If you do otherwise, then you must concede you don't know what science is. But science tells us lots of things, and lets us do certain things we wouldn't otherwise be able to do or know. If you're simply just going to whine about how you don't know a certain science term and not reply to it, then you'll just have to concede that you don't know what's going on in this debate or that you don't have the adequate materials against your debate opponents, and should research your topic more carefully. In fact, there's nothing wrong with asking about what a certain science term means--it's certainly better than pretending to know what it means. To debate about a subject like abortion, which is done by doctors who have had to study science and expect there not to be any kind of mention of science is ridiculous and nearly impossible.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I'm not hating on you. Just pointing out the hideous, gaping flaws in your argument

Wow, that's a pretty shitty counter-argument. Pro-choice people NEVER tried to argue that people should be able to do anything and everything to their bodies. That you even tried to insinuate that with your heroin example is both erroneous and makes you look foolish and ill-informed. The argument is purely about allowing a woman to abort a fetus without any legal repercussions. It is not about being able to whatever they want to their bodies. Stay on topic.

I frankly don't care what side you're on. Your argument is sloppy and filled with strange and illogical jumping to conclusions. Again, I see you're bringing something completely irrelevant into this debate (aka: the idea of being able to do whatever you want with your body). Seriously, if you want to debate the ethics of that, start another thread. We're discussing abortion in here.

LOL, learn to read. Maybe if you did, you'd notice that you said "total" and the counter you linked to was-- rather unshockingly-- not labeled. So "total" what? Total worldwide or total national? You never said, so I was free to assume either. I assumed the latter. Next time be more specific.

Actually, I was being pretty civil before, but now I'm just pulling out all the stops. And yes, I do think you're stupid So is making completely unsubstantiated claims fun? Because that's, well, sorta what you're doing. Abortions are seriously harmful to a woman's health. If you have too many (read: maybe 3?), you don't have to worry about getting pregnant anymore because it will leave you sterile. Hmm, now let's think of birth control methods that are a) cheaper b) less harmful and c) have less of a social stigma attached to them. The pill, condoms, Plan B, just to name a few. Now, faced with these options, you think women are going to choose abortion as their birth control method? The only one living under a rock here is you.

Wow, what's something those links have in common? Hmm, let's think about it. Why, they're both hideously biased sources! One is from a pro-life blog and the other is from a conservative Republican site. I guess in my little source lecture from last time, I forgot to mention that the source should be unbiased. Yeah, that one is really important. And those sources-- I hate to break it to you-- are REALLY, REALLY biased. OH HEY! Look what I found from a credible and non-biased (in describing how the government funds abortions) source:

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html

Oh shit, that kind of tramples your argument all to hell, doesn't it? Oops And as a VERY CONCERNED tax payer, read this part with care:

"Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services"

Now, on to some more comments. A lot of what I read just made me shake my head. I really hope that most people here know that in order to make a baby, both a woman AND a man have to be involved. Unless there's a turkey baster. But I digress. I saw an argument that said that the woman should take responsiblity for her actions and keep the baby. So it's ALL her fault, and thus, she should ruin her life by having an unwanted child. Because clearly she was the only one involved. Bullshit

As for partial birth abortion: interesting that you call it that. That's what the pro-lifers call it. The procedure's real name is intact dilation and evacuation (aka: the medical name). Personally, I believe it should only be performed if the woman's life is in danger. I don't believe there is any other excuse for such an operation. However, I think it's a little useless to debate the use of such a method of abortion, as it accounts for approximately 0.17% of all abortions.

Owww the ownage, it hurts...=(. I only called it partial birth abortion, because thats the only name I know it by.

Perhaps I did make a few silly comments...but You win this one Erth

Good Day



- Kuja

 

[Misty]

When it comes to disabled kids, I don't know if I could personally have one, depends on the severity of their illness. If they are diagnosed while in the womb as having a life crippling disease, which would give them no quality of life - they wouldnt be able to love someone, be able to enjoy the wonders of life. However, if my child was diagnosed with a physical/mental issue, a severe one, but still be able to enjoy life and experience it, I could cope with looking after such a child.

I just think it would be cruel to bring a child into the world when it would have no concept of the world around them.

 

[der Astronom]

Agreed. We all have very different views on what is a human being. I beleive any human being that has started to develop is a human being. Quite a few of you beleive that it isn't until later stages, or birth that we should start caring about it.

If you can concede to this truth, then there's no point in arguing it. You're not really going to change anyone's minds into believing that a developing fetus isn't considered human, and as that is the case with certain people, they'll probably never change their stance about abortion because they don't believe people who are aborting are killing people. Just let it go unless you have a better reason not to; in which case, I'd like to hear it.

I didn't mean to suggest I didn't understand the scientific terminology that people have been using in this thread. I'm still posting in this thread afterall, so I haven't been too put off by it. I just meant to say that I don't think it helps this arguement that much. Can't people see things both ways and not just through science? There is a person involved as well, and thoughts and feelings (not of the foetus but of the people involved). Not labels, names and processes. I was merely saying that just because people are throwing science at pro-lifers as if it is the best arguement in the world, does not prove that they are right, though they act as if they are so. It doesn't give meaning to anything realy, only how things happen.

Then maybe you should explain how it is that their arguments are wrong. It's one thing not to like it, but just because you don't like people using science in their arguments doesn't make them wrong.

The matter is still subjective to personal belief and morals, and I don't think that it constitutes a valid arguement to only throw facts and figures and not debate on a moral level that would help us understand more. This debate seems to hold more for morals than for science in my opinion. In fact, if it were only science we were discussing this wouldn't even be a debate.

What science has told us is that a fetus is incapable of feeling or choice--it has none of the intellectual capacities that any normal human being exhibits--this is the reason why some people are pro-choice. It can, however, tell us what arguments are absurd. That is, saying we should let a fetus live because it has feelings when it clearly doesn't is faulty.

However, the problem with morality is that no one can agree with exactly what it is. A personal belief is something that other people should be allowed to keep, if they so desire. I do not think that pestering other people about what they choose to believe will accomplish much. Which is why I have no intent to persuade anyone towards being pro-choice or pro-life. I would, however, not mind sharing my own thoughts.

This thread may help people learn more about what other people think. But in the end, I will have learned nothing new, so long as it is not scientific fact or considered objective because subjective opinion cannot hold truth necessarily.

As for the comment about not having a debate over science, you may be surprised. There have been worse debates in the past here and everywhere else (and still happening) over things like teaching ID in classrooms and evolution vs. creation arguments. They usually tend to be one-sided though, but there are people that defend their faith to the death--even in the face of objective fact.

 

[der Astronom]

We're not machines though. There is some element of humanity left in us. We don't just sit here calculating the perfect route for man to take, ruthlessly cutting off any links that aren't pure. No. We follow our hearts, our feelings. People with disabilities may still fall in love, or perhaps if they don't feel it, see that that is what people do and act the role anyway. It's up to them and you can't ban all disabled people from reproducing like this.

I'd rather not follow the organ that pumps blood and shows no signs of intelligence at all. And following feelings is the same as with intuition; both are rather short sighted; you run the risk of never thinking ahead.

It's unfortunate that we always have to find solutions around the feelings people are unwilling to part with for irrational feelings. It's more challenging, yes, but unnecessary.

I have heard of a so called "metaphorical heart", but I don't think I'll ever understand it. I don't think it even exists.

 

[Shu]

Step aside from the most obvious contradictions, but what would it make people do if a nationwide abortion law would be set. I'm talking about "NO abortion at all" - I don't care what trimester, but honestly ... how fair do you think this would be for people?

Not trying to stray from the topic, but think of Illegal Aliens, are we deporting them upon finding them? No, most people use them for cheap labor as it is. Are we supporting them? Mostly. Hell they get my tax money. The US didn't always used to be this way though, 100-200 years back, citizens were citizens by earning their way in the country and "normal" immigrants actually still struggle to get these citizenships or green cards, or working visas.

So back to abortion, if there is a law, do you think people will stop? No. How would the nation handle this? I would think they wouldn't charge the mother with 1st degree murder, nor would they arrest them... new laws are always hard to uphold.

Before starting this rant, I am not saying killing babies is a good thing, nor am I saying abortion is ethical or politically correct. But as I've previously posted, it's a god given choice. So therefore I will not shun someone who actually has had one done, it's ludacris. (sp, but not looking it up)

Heck I can't even remember back before the age of 2, and when people said I was baptised at 1, how the heck do I acknowledge it? Do I remember going to a Presbyterian Church and having the preacher put his hand on my head with cold holy water? No, I was not concious of it, so therefore I don't recognize it as me being baptised.

That's how I treat humans before that age, no offense, I don't mind babies, but an occasional smile is the only good thing you get from them. Crying, Eating, Waste Disposal, is the only thing they can do and when they get beyond the age of 3, do they recall being born or do they recall their first birthday? No.

So therefore I don't recognize them of life quite yet. That's my narrow NARROW Minded perspective, sorry but it's true. When the baby is in the body, it is still part of her body, and by this means, she has the ability of choosing what to do with her body.

Smart people out there saying this is murder, really need to start defining it for dumb ignorant people. I mean seriously.. grow a pair.

 

[Maleficent]

My body, my choice. Of course I'd consider my partners views as well, but ultimately it's mine.

For instance, if I knew that my baby would be mentally retarded/handicapped- I'd abort. I don't have the time, funds, or the patience for that. And honestly, what sort of life would that person live?

Abortions in the third trimester are things that I don't agree with. Too far along IMHO.

 

[Erythritol]

Okay, Katsky, I'd like to make a comment here. There is a difference between believing in the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and advocating that those who have autism or any other disability not be allowed to reproduce. One is called pro-choice and the other is called eugenics. You know who was a big believer in eugenics? Adolf Hitler. Yeah. Quite frankly, I believe that suggesting people with autism shouldn't be allowed to reproduce is a little disturbing. I was with you up until now. But denying the rights of those who are disabled is a little too fascist and too much of a violation of human rights.