Abortion puzzles me

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The life-altering thing is not the reason a woman should have a right to abort, but it is a criteria that she may use in her own personal decision of whether or not to abort. The reason is that she should the right to do what she wants with her body.

Men do not have the choice, because nowhere is their body being taken up by a mass of cells.

The reason life-altering was brought up was that some people believe as soon as a woman has sex she is consenting somehow to have a baby. And somehow that is a binding contract, and therefore she must bring the baby to term. It's not a matter of consent, but a matter of responsibility.

KarenMarie said: The 8-10 years... i stated that rape, incest and health were exempt. if a woman is so irresponsible that she needs to 'terminate' a prenancy more often than that... it is my opinion that there is a problem.

I agree there is a problem with responsibility there. But it is not something the government should be regulating, since the woman has a right to her own body.


Does the government tell people what they should do with their physiology? With their nutrients? They regulate what we put into our bodies, but not what occurs inside our body itself. There are no laws that say we must use our nutrients in this way, our oxygen in this sort of way. If you look at a potential law outlawing abortion, it would in effect be saying that a woman must use her body in such a way to make it habitable for the fetus. There is absolutely no precedent for such a law.

God gave us the gift of choice and free-will. Having babies and getting pregnant is a gift. The mothers who have abortions for no good reason are irresponsible. But the judgement of what will happen to those people, should be determined by God, as it's his gift. The government should not act as the judgement. Furthermore, everyone's God is different. I'm sure my vision of God is different than yours. We cannot use God to make our laws.

God gave us the gift of choice and free-will. Having babies and getting pregnant is a gift. The mothers who have abortions for no good reason are irresponsible. But the judgement of what will happen to those people, should be determined by God, as it's his gift. The government should not act as the judgement. Furthermore, everyone's God is different. I'm sure my vision of God is different than yours. We cannot use God to make our laws.

society tells men that if they are not ready to have a baby, they should not have sex. But women have a totally different standard. You mention cells feeding off them. That is fine, but again, that is a choice that she made. Just like it is a choice men made and will have to live with for 18-21yrs. We will have to disagree on our beliefs of whether a woman has a right to do whatever she likes with her body. My first instinct is to say that she should not. But that would lead us into ... who would have the right? Men, the government, or...??? And I am not ready to go there. In a perfect world, women would realize what a wonderful being they are. And what a pure gift from God their being able to give birth is and treat is with the preciousness and awe that it is.

The government sticks it nose into nutrients all the time. And their physiology as well as their physcology. People are often locked up in an instutitution if they are thought to be a risk to themselves or those around them. And as for the nutrients... call the nearest DYFSS and tell them that the kids next door are not getting fed. They will show up and pull those kids in a heartbeat if they think that the mother is not providing proper nutrients to sustain the kids life. But again, we get back to whether or not we believe a woman has the right to destroy a life because it is inside of her, instead of at the kitchen table. We will agree to disagree.

Again, I am not saying that I beleive that all abortions should be banned under all circumstances. I miscarried twice when i wanted a baby and got pregnant on the pill when i did not. i know shite happens. But i think that the way things are now... abortion on demand, and as a method of birth control ... is wrong. it should not be so easy to have an abortion and it should not be allowed for children without parental notification/consent. And third trimester abortions, should not be allowed unless he mother's life is at risk and the baby is not viable. Take the baby, and let it live and be adopted. A viable baby should never, ever be put to death because a woman changed her mind.

But once again, i say I am not in charge. My beliefs are my own, and although they are strong in my heart... i wont be marching in any rallys or blowing up abortion clinics any time soon.

 

[Dubb]

Now I realize not every person is inclined to argue pointlessly over such topics, in some cases threads are started by totally unfit and possibly unstable people. Then there are the cases where some unfortunate people have become the victim of these threads and I can totally sympathize with why they feel the need to go for a "lawnchair, popcorn, beer" type post. But for the most part it seems to me that many people choose these posts because they don't want the responsibility. It's really sad, in fact it's downright heartbreaking because every such post is taking away the life from this pointless thread. Everyone gets up in arms when they hear "SPIDER", "DH!TB", "QFT" and any other atrocity (sp?) commited against pointless threads but why does'nt that type of feeling extend to "lawnchair, popcorn, beer". After all they're the most helpless and have the least means of defending themselves.

I don't want this to degenerate into a flamefest I just felt like stating something I feel strongly about and hopefully sparking some intelligent discussion.

 

[OCNewbie]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Here is my position on abortion. Woman has a right to "evict" a fetus from her body. But if it's viable outside the womb, it should not be killed.

I think I agree with this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Dubb
Now I realize not every person is inclined to argue pointlessly over such topics, in some cases threads are started by totally unfit and possibly unstable people. Then there are the cases where some unfortunate people have become the victim of these threads and I can totally sympathize with why they feel the need to go for a "lawnchair, popcorn, beer" type post. But for the most part it seems to me that many people choose these posts because they don't want the responsibility. It's really sad, in fact it's downright heartbreaking because every such post is taking away the life from this pointless thread. Everyone gets up in arms when they hear "SPIDER", "DH!TB", "QFT" and any other atrocity (sp?) commited against pointless threads but why does'nt that type of feeling extend to "lawnchair, popcorn, beer". After all they're the most helpless and have the least means of defending themselves.

I don't want this to degenerate into a flamefest I just felt like stating something I feel strongly about and hopefully sparking some intelligent discussion.

There is nothing to discuss.. it all comes down to personal opinion. Everyone has their own value system, etc. Deal with it.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
[ Deal with it.

if nobody else has to, I don't either.

I will cease to debate with people if they attack a poster through name calls, petty insults, etc or use the bandwagon internet "term" "own" or any variation thereof. Maturity level is very much related to wisdom/intelligence/etc etc.

poopyhead.

 

[bleeb]

abortion sucks, but it's freedom.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The life-altering thing is not the reason a woman should have a right to abort, but it is a criteria that she may use in her own personal decision of whether or not to abort. The reason is that she should the right to do what she wants with her body.

Men do not have the choice, because nowhere is their body being taken up by a mass of cells.

The reason life-altering was brought up was that some people believe as soon as a woman has sex she is consenting somehow to have a baby. And somehow that is a binding contract, and therefore she must bring the baby to term. It's not a matter of consent, but a matter of responsibility.

KarenMarie said: The 8-10 years... i stated that rape, incest and health were exempt. if a woman is so irresponsible that she needs to 'terminate' a prenancy more often than that... it is my opinion that there is a problem.

I agree there is a problem with responsibility there. But it is not something the government should be regulating, since the woman has a right to her own body.


Does the government tell people what they should do with their physiology? With their nutrients? They regulate what we put into our bodies, but not what occurs inside our body itself. There are no laws that say we must use our nutrients in this way, our oxygen in this sort of way. If you look at a potential law outlawing abortion, it would in effect be saying that a woman must use her body in such a way to make it habitable for the fetus. There is absolutely no precedent for such a law.

God gave us the gift of choice and free-will. Having babies and getting pregnant is a gift. The mothers who have abortions for no good reason are irresponsible. But the judgement of what will happen to those people, should be determined by God, as it's his gift. The government should not act as the judgement. Furthermore, everyone's God is different. I'm sure my vision of God is different than yours. We cannot use God to make our laws.

God gave us the gift of choice and free-will. Having babies and getting pregnant is a gift. The mothers who have abortions for no good reason are irresponsible. But the judgement of what will happen to those people, should be determined by God, as it's his gift. The government should not act as the judgement. Furthermore, everyone's God is different. I'm sure my vision of God is different than yours. We cannot use God to make our laws.

society tells men that if they are not ready to have a baby, they should not have sex. But women have a totally different standard. You mention cells feeding off them. That is fine, but again, that is a choice that she made. Just like it is a choice men made and will have to live with for 18-21yrs. We will have to disagree on our beliefs of whether a woman has a right to do whatever she likes with her body. My first instinct is to say that she should not. But that would lead us into ... who would have the right? Men, the government, or...??? And I am not ready to go there. In a perfect world, women would realize what a wonderful being they are. And what a pure gift from God their being able to give birth is and treat is with the preciousness and awe that it is.

I agree with your perfect world

But, of course, I cannot agree with your thoughts on our imperfect one. This choice you talk about was what I was referring to with the consent argument. Choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. There are people (plenty of them) out there who do use birth control, who intend to have sex for pleasure, and yet still get pregnant. They made no explicit or even implicit choice to be pregnant. By forcing these people to carry the fetus to term, which is clearly what the intended to avoid, you are violating their rights over their own body.

By all means, if having sex meant you're in a binding contract to become pregnant, I'd say that the mother would lose the right to control her own body. But that's not the reality here.

The government sticks it nose into nutrients all the time. And their physiology as well as their physcology. People are often locked up in an instutitution if they are thought to be a risk to themselves or those around them. And as for the nutrients... call the nearest DYFSS and tell them that the kids next door are not getting fed. They will show up and pull those kids in a heartbeat if they think that the mother is not providing proper nutrients to sustain the kids life. But again, we get back to whether or not we believe a woman has the right to destroy a life because it is inside of her, instead of at the kitchen table. We will agree to disagree.

you're talking about kids, who have very few rights. i'm talking about adults. the government is *not* regulating nutrients are conveyed to what parts of the body in the mother of that child you speak of. the government will never has stuck its nose there. i think we can both agree to agree that the government has had no precedent like what it would be saying if it outlawed abortion. in fact, from what you've written about who gets the rights over someone's own body - you don't know who to give it to if not the woman, i know you agree.

Again, I am not saying that I beleive that all abortions should be banned under all circumstances. I miscarried twice when i wanted a baby and got pregnant on the pill when i did not. i know shite happens. But i think that the way things are now... abortion on demand, and as a method of birth control ... is wrong. it should not be so easy to have an abortion and it should not be allowed for children without parental notification/consent. And third trimester abortions, should not be allowed unless he mother's life is at risk and the baby is not viable. Take the baby, and let it live and be adopted. A viable baby should never, ever be put to death because a woman changed her mind.

This whole abortion on demand and as a method of birth control is a farce. It is completely not true, and is just propaganda from pro-lifers. It happens in rare instances - there almost aren't people out there who go out there, have sex, get an abortion, go out there, have sex, get an abortion, and so on. Having an abortion isn't like flipping a switch. It involves significant physical and emotional trauma. People go see counselors after this. What the government should be doing is educating people *beforehand*. Telling them to use birthcontrol if they refuse to abstinent. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to educating children on what abortion involves when they learn sex ed - not to necessarily scare them, but to tell them at least what it involves which isn't pretty.

Regardless of that, I think children should be able to get an abortion - after significant counseling from a third party - without the consent of her parent. Otherwise we'd simply be handing the control of the child's reproductive system to the parent.

But once again, i say I am not in charge. My beliefs are my own, and although they are strong in my heart... i wont be marching in any rallys or blowing up abortion clinics any time soon.

I'm glad you won't be

But let me say, I feel strongly on moral grounds that woman should be able to keep this choice. But I also, quite separately, feel strongly on practical grounds. I know that women out there will keep getting abortions regardless of whether it's outlawed, except they'll do it like they did in the old days - coathangers, dangerous chemicals, and the like. All this can cost the life of the mother, in addition to the life of the child. I think that as we're thinking about what's practical, we need abortion to be legal, so that it can be regulated and people can get proper care.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
answer this: why should you?

because i am a human life, and i will die without your precious bodily fluids. why won't you help me. i weigh less than 2 pounds (might grow a bit - yeah i might keep you in bed eventually), and i just need some life support. hook me up, bro.

will you help me out?

no, stop using sh!tty analogies.

then why should a woman let herself be hooked up to a fetus?

you're a murderer.

Your analogy is so ridiculous, it deserves a ridiculous analogy of its own.

Let's say you need a ride from, oh, San Francisco to LA. I choose to take you in my plane. Halfway through the trip, I say "F*ck this, you're wasting my precious fuel!" and I push you out.

Am I legally responsible for that act?

Hey, if you really want, you can even be that weak 2 pound thing hooked up to a nutrient stream that you describe. However, since I am not arguing against first-trimester abortion, you DO have to be a being that feels pain and has a somewhat developed brain.

This thread is pathetic. Clear proof that the moment abortion is mentioned, the IQ of all those arguing drops by 70 points or more. I swear, I haven't seen a single argument yet that isn't based on completely ludicrous assumptions.

 

[SampSon]

I'm all for abortion, if you don't like that then talk to the business end of my gun.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Just an FYI, I've spoken to many Germans (a group of enlightened Europeans if you will) about this issue. Their word for it is Abtreibung.

Anyway, even they think our policies on third-trimester abortion, including partial-birth abortion, are completely inhumane. And if you polled Americans about third-trimester abortions, I think you would find that close 75% or more disagree (poll).

More info on partial birth abortion.

So, I believe you are in the majority when it comes to aborting a 7-month-old unborn baby. Heck, I was born at 7 months.

And I will part with this bombshell: We all have a choice. That choice should be whether we have sex or not. If sex is forced upon you, that's a different matter. If you can't accept the responsibilities of parenthood, you shouldn't be having sex.

Its nice when I can just quote someone else. Thanks.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
answer this: why should you?

because i am a human life, and i will die without your precious bodily fluids. why won't you help me. i weigh less than 2 pounds (might grow a bit - yeah i might keep you in bed eventually), and i just need some life support. hook me up, bro.

will you help me out?

no, stop using sh!tty analogies.

then why should a woman let herself be hooked up to a fetus?

you're a murderer.

Your analogy is so ridiculous, it deserves a ridiculous analogy of its own.

Let's say you need a ride from, oh, San Francisco to LA. I choose to take you in my plane. Halfway through the trip, I say "F*ck this, you're wasting my precious fuel!" and I push you out.

Am I legally responsible for that act?

Hey, if you really want, you can even be that weak 2 pound thing hooked up to a nutrient stream that you describe. However, since I am not arguing against first-trimester abortion, you DO have to be a being that feels pain and has a somewhat developed brain.

This thread is pathetic. Clear proof that the moment abortion is mentioned, the IQ of all those arguing drops by 70 points or more. I swear, I haven't seen a single argument yet that isn't based on completely ludicrous assumptions.

gimme a f'n break. the analogy works. you're just attaching crap to it "it has to feel pain, have a developed brain". and even then it still works.

hell yes, you can disconnect me. you never consented to have me attached in the first place.

i can count on dipsh!ts like you to thread crap and not make an argument themselves, cause they have none. they can't come up with an original idea.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Not in 3rd trimester abortions...sort of.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: jagec
This thread is pathetic. Clear proof that the moment abortion is mentioned, the IQ of all those arguing drops by 70 points or more. I swear, I haven't seen a single argument yet that isn't based on completely ludicrous assumptions.

hell yes, you can disconnect me. you never consented to have me attached in the first place.

i can count on dipsh!ts like you to thread crap and not make an argument themselves, cause they have none. they can't come up with an original idea.

Your parents never gave you "the talk", did they? You see, when a man and a woman love each other very much...

Oh, and as for "attaching crap to it", forgive me for bringing my moderate views into an abortion debate. Clearly the only acceptible positions I'm allowed to hold are "all abortions should be banned under all circumstances", or "all abortions are A-OK no matter what":roll:

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
MAJOR SNIPPAGE!

We are looking at this from two different points of view. yours is more legal, mine is more moral. that is fine because we will not ever agree anyway.

You talk about explict consent. I believe that the act of sex during the fertile cycle, without protection is, by it's very act, consent to all consequences that come from it. The act of abortion is taking back that consent by means of terminating a potential life and in late term, a viable baby. You and I will never see that from the same POV though. And my original perfect world list allows for the 'shite happens' scenerio.

You are correct that while I am not agreeable to the thought that a woman should be in total control of her body, the life of a viable baby and the future 18-21yrs of the father without question and some restriction, i will concede that i do not have a legal answer. I have my feelings and my somewhat emotional and moral opinions and feelings. Apart from my original list of stuff, i do not have an answer that will protect a baby while not overtaking the mother. but I still do not think that abortions anytime, for any reason as often as wanted is right. it is just not right.

the abortion on demand and as a method of birth control is not really a farce. there are many, many women who have 2, 3 and sometimes 4 abortions. i know of at least four of these women in my life and have heard of many more. while the majority of women are not repeaters, there is a % of women who are. it is not a total farce.

i am confused by your last paragraph. it was my understanding that through out all of this, your stance was that government should NOT regulate abortion, but now you are saying that they should. Am i to take it that you mean that the government should regulate only making abortion freely available to whomever, whenever they want but stay out of any form of regulation to protect viable babies?

the scare stories of thousands of women dying by coathanger abortions... it was blown out of proportion to scare ppl.
Text


Again, you and I will never agree... but i appreciate a 'non hateful' debate/discussion.

 

[mchammer]

Wow I am impressed it doesn't look like anyone has been banned yet.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
You talk about explict consent. I believe that the act of sex during the fertile cycle, without protection is, by it's very act, consent to all consequences that come from it. The act of abortion is taking back that consent by means of terminating a potential life and in late term, a viable baby. You and I will never see that from the same POV though. And my original perfect world list allows for the 'shite happens' scenerio.

You are correct that while I am not agreeable to the thought that a woman should be in total control of her body, the life of a viable baby and the future 18-21yrs of the father without question and some restriction, i will concede that i do not have a legal answer. I have my feelings and my somewhat emotional and moral opinions and feelings. Apart from my original list of stuff, i do not have an answer that will protect a baby while not overtaking the mother. but I still do not think that abortions anytime, for any reason as often as wanted is right. it is just not right.
....
Again, you and I will never agree... but i appreciate a 'non hateful' debate/discussion.

You have a slightly more extreme position on the subject than I do, but you're also the only person in this thread on either side who doesn't make ridiculous assumptions, then base your argument on them. You also admit that parts of your argument are based on personal convictions, which is true for everyone, but most won't say it.

Kudos to you. Yours is a much more mature position than the others in this thread.

You'd make a terrible talk show host with that attitude, though

 

[Banzai042]

Ok, I categorize abortions as being one of two things: 1) Life of the mother at risk/rape/incest, 2)Everything else.

In the case of the first category, I'm not sure that abortion is so wrong. After all, if it's a choice between a)Kid aborted, or b)Mom dies/sever health issues, baby (depending on circumstances) also dies/severe medical issues, then option A makes far more sense. In the case of rape/incest, I can only imagine what a terrible experience that would be for a women, and i can see not wanting to be reminded of that, and such things truly aren't consentual.

The problem that i have with the second option is that sex does 2 things, 1) Provides pleasure/entertainment, 2) Some of the time, MAKES BABIES. It's a biological fact, pregnancy = possible result of sex. Now i will grant that there are methods of greatly reducing the risk of pregancy, like the pill, condoms, and even the woman thinking about "hey, every month about a few days from now i start having my period, oh wait, that means i'm possibly fertile now." These measures however DON'T completely remove the risk.

Let's put this in terms of a gambling analogy. Lets say that you of your own free will decide to play a game where you roll dice, and you get money based on the roll, however if you roll one specific thing then you get a two pound mass attached to you to suck nutrients (to integrate a previous analogy). If you rolled the result that meant having the mass attached to you would you bitch about having your rights violated and having it attached against your will, and that you should be able to pull it off, even though you chose to roll the dice to begin with? Let's even say that if you wanted you could play with a pair of d20 dice as opposed to a pair of 6 sided dice, but there was still only one specific combo that resulted in the 2 pound mass, so the risk of having that result was very greatly reduced, but still possible, is it still not your fault, or your right to cheat the rules by cutting the mass off from your support, even though you still made the voulintary choice to roll the dice?

The problem is that we want the right to have sex whenever, and with whoever we please without consiquences. If you want to go ahead and do that it's your choice, but be prepared to deal with the fact that with the right to do that comes the reality of being responsible for the consiquences. I do believe that if laws outlawing abortion are made then they should always include provisions for the health of the mother and for instances of incest/rape, because in these cases it's not truly the choice of the mother to take that risk, or a rational choice to be forced to accept enormous health issues/possible death. However i also believe that if it's not a case of rape/incest and and you won't suffer huge medical complications as a very direct result of the pregnancy, then you made the choice, welcome to reality, there are consiquences for choices here.

Here's another situation, if a woman gets pregnant, and the father wants her to keep the baby, but she wants an abortion, she gets the abortion (under current laws), because it's "her body, her choice", correct? In fact, she can say that she's not prepared to be a mother, or she's not able to take care of the kid, and that is considered by some to be a valid excuse. In that case if the situation is reversed, and the father wants the abortion but the mother refuses, then shouldn't the father be allowed to not have any involvement in the kid's life, and not be responsible for financial support, because maybe he's not ready to take care of the kid, or perhaps he's not able to provide for the kid in those circumstances? If it's a valid reason for the woman to choose not to have a kid (abortion), then why shouldn't it be a valid excuse for a man to not have a kid (no child support and no contact with the kid at all). After all, in both cases it's the parent saying "I am making a choice to say that i am not going to have a kid because i'm not ready to/not able to," the only difference is if the kid is born or not.

 

[Banzai042]

DP

 

[0roo0roo]

jesus, 14 pages?
moral worth is not equal for all life. don't kid yourself. what would you choose to save from a burning building if you could only choose one. a cooler full of 1000 frozen embryos, or 1 living 4 year old child.

if they are truely just equal then you'd obviously have to let the 4 year old burn to death.

its black and white for the pro lifers, its unequestionable. but this is absurd as pretending your god is the one god and only god and pretending it should be a given fact for all.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
DP

I would read your other post if there were paragraphs in it.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
jesus, 14 pages?
moral worth is not equal for all life. don't kid yourself. what would you choose to save from a burning building if you couldn't only choose one. a cooler full of 1000 frozen embryos, or 1 living 4 year old child.

if they are truely just equal then you'd obviously have to let the 4 year old burn to death.

its black and white for the pro lifers, its unequestionable. but this is absurd as pretending your god is the one god and only god and pretending it should be a given fact for all.

If it was guaranteed that 95% of those 1000 embryos would become 4 year olds in 5 years, then it'd be a difficult decision, imo.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Banzai042
DP

I would read your other post if there were paragraphs in it.

There were paragraphs, though i just edited and put a line between each one to make it more obvious

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Banzai042
DP

I would read your other post if there were paragraphs in it.

There were paragraphs, though i just edited and put a line between each one to make it more obvious

Thank you for doing so. My stance is pretty close to your.

 

[OCNewbie]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
moral worth is not equal for all life. don't kid yourself. what would you choose to save from a burning building if you couldn't only choose one. a cooler full of 1000 frozen embryos, or 1 living 4 year old child.

if they are truely just equal then you'd obviously have to let the 4 year old burn to death.

Good point, well said =)

 

[OCNewbie]

jesus, double post on an edit