Abortion puzzles me

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but the cute widdle kitten will burn to death, its lungs being seared by hot gases while its hair and skin are set alight by the flames and it gasps and sputters while flailing about in desperation until it dies.

Gruesome imagery, but no-joy. I'm not one of those "all life is equal" people.

Well to clarify in the grand scheme of things all life might indeed be equal, but not to me.

To humans, human life should be more important, and to a degree "potential" human life as well. If, through some screwed up turn of events, killing a kitten would stop someone from having an abortion I'd do that as well.

You put a kitten over a fetus... sad.. and sick...and delusional...I'd kill you to prevent you from killing the kitten.

 

[ender11122]

true story-my son who is 4 yrs old now was not planned. his mother approached me about her pregnancy when she was 5 months along. informing me i was the father. she had told me that she was going to give him up for adoption, rather than abort(as there are many ppl in the world that would like a healthy child b/c they can't have one of their own). anyways, 2 weeks b4 he was to be born, she changed her mind, she decided that she could not bear the thought of giving up a life she carried with her for 9 months. we struggle yes, but he has everything he could want, and we have him. again, i do not believe abortion is the right way to solve an issue(bandaid on a gun shot wound), but i'm not so high on the totem pole to say it should be outlawed or anything.

Anyone besides dispair actually have experience. Im a freshman in college and two of my very best friends had abortions in high school. In hindsight, they did the right thing and I and they and the fathers are all very greatful the law allowed them to do what was right. Had they had the child, the parents lives, their parents lives, and the childs lives would have all been completely changed (and likely not for the better). The chances of these couples staying together and bringing the child up in a loving home is practically zero. The parents wouldnt let it go up for adoption (hell, the would have probably adopted it themselves, stupid religious finatics) and the grandparents would have been lousy parents anyway. What I am trying to say is, there was no good solution but by having the abortion they girls could get through school and both of them are now on their ways to a college degree.

dispair I am very glad you are doing well with your son and you are a great inspiration to girls who want to give it a shot, but in some cases its just not feasible.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but the cute widdle kitten will burn to death, its lungs being seared by hot gases while its hair and skin are set alight by the flames and it gasps and sputters while flailing about in desperation until it dies.

Gruesome imagery, but no-joy. I'm not one of those "all life is equal" people.

Well to clarify in the grand scheme of things all life might indeed be equal, but not to me.

To humans, human life should be more important, and to a degree "potential" human life as well. If, through some screwed up turn of events, killing a kitten would stop someone from having an abortion I'd do that as well.

You put a kitten over a fetus... sad.. and sick...and delusional...I'd kill you to prevent you from killing the kitten.

How am I putting a kitten over a fetus?

I'm saying that the fetus(es) should be preserved if the only thing that would be lost in doing is the kitten's life. Isn't that putting the fetus over the kitten?

What a dumb argument anyway, you can thank 0roo0roo for the rediculous hypothetical situation.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: ender11122

true story-my son who is 4 yrs old now was not planned. his mother approached me about her pregnancy when she was 5 months along. informing me i was the father. she had told me that she was going to give him up for adoption, rather than abort(as there are many ppl in the world that would like a healthy child b/c they can't have one of their own). anyways, 2 weeks b4 he was to be born, she changed her mind, she decided that she could not bear the thought of giving up a life she carried with her for 9 months. we struggle yes, but he has everything he could want, and we have him. again, i do not believe abortion is the right way to solve an issue(bandaid on a gun shot wound), but i'm not so high on the totem pole to say it should be outlawed or anything.

Anyone besides dispair actually have experience. Im a freshman in college and two of my very best friends had abortions in high school. In hindsight, they did the right thing and I and they and the fathers are all very greatful the law allowed them to do what was right. Had they had the child, the parents lives, their parents lives, and the childs lives would have all been completely changed (and likely not for the better). The chances of these couples staying together and bringing the child up in a loving home is practically zero. The parents wouldnt let it go up for adoption (hell, the would have probably adopted it themselves, stupid religious finatics) and the grandparents would have been lousy parents anyway. What I am trying to say is, there was no good solution but by having the abortion they girls could get through school and both of them are now on their ways to a college degree.

dispair I am very glad you are doing well with your son and you are a great inspiration to girls who want to give it a shot, but in some cases its just not feasible.

What's wrong with the parent's adopting and what does being a religious fanatic have to do with it? If anyone's read any of my other post then they know that I most certainly am not religious, but confronted with a similar situation I think I would be tempted to adopt my grandchild rather that see them aborted. Make no mistake I am pro-choice. It's the mother's decision in the end and that's how it should be, but there's nothing wrong with working out a situation where the baby live and the mother gets to go on with her life. Even if that means the grandparents have to adopt to keep the child in the family.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but the cute widdle kitten will burn to death, its lungs being seared by hot gases while its hair and skin are set alight by the flames and it gasps and sputters while flailing about in desperation until it dies.

Gruesome imagery, but no-joy. I'm not one of those "all life is equal" people.

Well to clarify in the grand scheme of things all life might indeed be equal, but not to me.

To humans, human life should be more important, and to a degree "potential" human life as well. If, through some screwed up turn of events, killing a kitten would stop someone from having an abortion I'd do that as well.

You put a kitten over a fetus... sad.. and sick...and delusional...I'd kill you to prevent you from killing the kitten.

How am I putting a kitten over a fetus?

I'm saying that the fetus(es) should be preserved if the only thing that would be lost in doing is the kitten's life. Isn't that putting the fetus over the kitten?

What a dumb argument anyway, you can thank 0roo0roo for the rediculous hypothetical situation.

its just a thought experirment to explore a creatures actual moral value. choosing between bad choices is done all the time in reality, especially today in iraq so don't say its unrealistic to think about. doctors have to do this all the time.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: WolverineGator
I am a maternal and child health data manager for the State of Florida. We had 213,000 women give birth to 218,000 kids in 2004 (latest data available). About half of those deliveries were paid for by the state (Medicaid (= poor people)) resulting in a significant tax burden.

Many of those who abort eventually have a child and they are better able to raise that child, usually with fewer social and support services. Unwanted babies are more prone to developmental delay in school. You might guess that abortions are disproportionately higher among Medicaid women. If abortion were illegal, unsafe abortion practices would certainly continue. That is common knowledge in the maternal and child health field, but perhaps not so to the lay public (ATOT).

My point is, abortion isn't simply yes/no. There are consequences for everyone: families, schools, government, health care systems, and taxpayers.

Best response yet! :thumbsup:

People with disabilities are a financial burden to taxpayers, but no one is arguing for their extermination.

Why not? People it is clear that they are alive, and we all have a duty to protect that life.

A life is a life is a life, regardless of economic, intellectual, physical or genetic status. Step away from that belief, and then you get things like eugenics and genocide being justified.

The debate about abortion always boils down to ONE CLEAR ISSUE: Is a developing human considered to be alive?

1. Yes -> abortion illegal

1. No -> abortion legal

If you want to talk about issues beyond that, fine, but be clear that you then support killing innocent people to benefit others.

I'm sure all of the civilian casualties of wars, past ,present and future, would be glad to hear you say that.

Don't support abortion? Then don't have one.
Support all being's right to life? Then you must disallow the death penalty as well. because IF YOU SUPPORT the death penalty, then you are advocating the position bolded above. Statistics are showing that there are innocent people on death row today, and we (as a Society) have killed innocents in the name of the law.
I believe the Buddhists have it right, in their belief tat all beings ,great and small, are sentient and have a right to exist, from the lowest to the highest.
Makes one's choices rather simple.

The worst part about being party to a terminated pregnancy is that haunting feeling of "what if..."? There is no "best" part.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

its just a thought experirment to explore a creatures actual moral value. choosing between bad choices is done all the time in reality, especially today in iraq so don't say its unrealistic to think about. doctors have to do this all the time.

I don't think the concept is unrealistic. An extended argument over whether I should kill the kitten to save the fetus would be more than I could stomach though.

 

[Brazen]

I'm pro-choice. I just believe the fetus/baby should have choices. That's why I hate the term "pro-choice," when it's not really pro-choice, but pro-choosing-to-be-selfish.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: Argo
Oh boy...

classic

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Brazen
I'm pro-choice. I just believe the fetus/baby should have choices. That's why I hate the term "pro-choice," when it's not really pro-choice, but pro-choosing-to-be-selfish.

The fetus has choices, inasmuch as it can make them. Generally most fetuses choose to float in a bath of amniotic fluid. Later on they can choose to suck their thumbs and kick about a bit (much to the mother's discomfort). Perhaps your point is that they will eventually grow into human's who wil be capable of making choices. I can't comment there, other than to say that you shouldn't view a fetus as what it can potentially be, but what it is now. That line of thought leads you back into a chain of cause and effect that actually extends beyond the conception of the embryo.

As for the term Pro-Choice, choosing for selfish reasons or any other reason still constitutes choice, so the choice in pro-choice is pretty accurate I think.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wow, it still lives!!!

ok how about kittens. if you had to choose between saving a kitten or 10 test tubes of embryos from a burning building whcih would u choose. which has more moral value?

its a freakin cute widdle kitten!!

YEAH!! Kitten FTW!!
Kittens are nicer than human beings.

Does anyone here actually remember being inside their mother's whom? I don't think so. Anyone see where I'm going with this?

 

[cerebrix]

this thread just reminded me why i havent posted or even looked at things here in 2 years.

thanks for reminding me

its a real shame too, this site was so good back in the 3dfx days

 

[skace]

It ain't over til the fat lady aborts.

 

[Tab]

Wow, this threads needs to die along with insane amount of politicalization of abortion...

 

[agathodaimon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: skace
It ain't over til the fat lady aborts.

:laugh:

 

[M11293]

They only thing I really have to say about abortion is that the same political party that advocates freedom of choice is the same party that refuses capital punishment.

You can legally kill an infant who is completely innocent and free from responsibility, but you can't kill a murderer who is entirely in control of his/her actions.

 

[ng12345]

all pro-life pro-choice issues aside;

is it better to bring a child into the world where the mother does not think she can handle the responsibilities of a child and may not want a child and can not give it everything it needs; or is it better for a child to be brought into the world where the mother (and father) anticipate the child with open arms

btw here is an interesting new york times read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magaz...ecb2ddc&ex=1144814400&pagewanted=print
(this should not require a login)

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: ng12345
all pro-life pro-choice issues aside;

is it better to bring a child into the world where the mother does not think she can handle the responsibilities of a child and may not want a child and can not give it everything it needs; or is it better for a child to be brought into the world where the mother (and father) anticipate the child with open arms

btw here is an interesting new york times read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magaz...ecb2ddc&ex=1144814400&pagewanted=print
(this should not require a login)

Wel if I stay constrained within the bounds of the 2 unrealistically limited options you're giving me then it's definitely better for a child to be brought into the world in scenario #2.

Before you start saying "AHAH! so there you go" you should know I always thought of adoption as a very good alternative to abortion in the first scenario. The only reason not to choose adoption is if the mother is unwilling or unable to carry the child to term. Both reasons are fine by me as I believe it's ultimately the mother's choice, but I would ALWAYS urge someone to consider adoption over abortion.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Brazen
I'm pro-choice. I just believe the fetus/baby should have choices. That's why I hate the term "pro-choice," when it's not really pro-choice, but pro-choosing-to-be-selfish.

The fetus has choices, inasmuch as it can make them. Generally most fetuses choose to float in a bath of amniotic fluid. Later on they can choose to suck their thumbs and kick about a bit (much to the mother's discomfort). Perhaps your point is that they will eventually grow into human's who wil be capable of making choices. I can't comment there, other than to say that you shouldn't view a fetus as what it can potentially be, but what it is now. That line of thought leads you back into a chain of cause and effect that actually extends beyond the conception of the embryo.

As for the term Pro-Choice, choosing for selfish reasons or any other reason still constitutes choice, so the choice in pro-choice is pretty accurate I think.

I know this thread seems to go on and on, but I would still like to chime in with some comments. The main thing that I have noticed is that people are making comments to support their view of abortion that only hold up if you limit your view.

For example, many people have commented on the fact that fetuses are not sentient or capable of making decisions or whatever words they use. You could actually say the exact same thing about a premature baby. If a baby is born at 5 months, they are not capable of making decisions or taking care of themselves in any way. They are completely dependent on their caretaker; however, it would be murder to kill them once they are born. I would surmise that a 9-month-old fetus (or even a 6-month-old fetus) is more developed and has more of a thought process than a 5-month-old fetus 10 minutes after it is delivered (and instantly becomes a sentient being with rights to life and the ability to make decisions for him- or herself...NOT!).

The next set of comments I would like to touch on are those that mentioned that the fetus just sits inside her mother and is completely dependent on her, which makes it perfectly acceptable for her to kill whatever is inside her body. I know that some people have made the distinction between life support and the baby living inside her mother. I don't think there is much distinction, however, between the mother deciding what to do with her body before or after the child's birth. What if the mother decided that she did not want to feed or take care of the child after it's born. It is her body after all. If she doesn't want to spend her day feeding and caring for the child and it dies because of her decisions of what to do with her body then maybe this should be her response:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us
do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

My last comment is in regards to the pro-life people out there who are trying to make the debate that there's no difference between a week-old embryo and a 2-year-old toddler. From a religious standpoint I think one could argue that killing either is still murder. However, how many things are legal that are wrong according to religion (smoking, drinking, sex outside of marriage, even dancing for some people). However, we (at least I) are talking about what should be legal and what shouldn't, not about what's right and wrong (which varies with different religions and value systems). I think that this argument should be applied to an age when the baby is old enough to be born. If a baby can be delivered and live and have rights at five months, then that baby should have those rights at that same age even before it is delivered. I did a search to try and find what the youngest baby ever was, but I couldn't find anything. I know that five-month deliveries are fairly common. Some people mentioned that it should only be legal in the first three months, which I think is perfectly acceptable for how the law should be written (unless it puts the mother at risk). If the mother can just randomly decide whenever she wants to purge her body of the fetus, then how is that so different than just deciding to randomly purge her life of her baby after he/she is born. I'm not saying that a 4-month-old fetus is equal with a 1-year-old baby. I'm just saying that if the mother can't decide if she wants an abortion in the first three months, then that should result in her waiving her right to have one since the fetus's development very much resembles a living baby, which she would not be able to choose to abort. I don't think this should be any different for rape victims, because they still have time to decide if they want the abortion or not.

I know I'll get slammed for my comments, but people are entitled to their opinions. These are mine, and I am trying to compromise with those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. The pro-choice people will still get to decide on an abortion (even though I think it is wrong, but that is my view from a religious standpoint and should not directly translate in the laws of this religiously diverse nation). And the pro-life people get to feel that there is some control over killing a fetus that is old enough to be born and have rights and all that.