Abortion

[Gravity]

Abortion is never the answer to previous bad decisions. According to C. Everett Koop, abortion to save the life of the mother is never required.

Abortion scars the mother for life and research about how abortion affects fathers is now being conducted but early evidence suggests that males suffer as well from their involvement or uninvolvement in the decision.

Finally, the baby suffers. Anyone seen the silent scream video?

Ironically, most of the abortions probably would have voted the democratic ticket according to a recent news article.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DWW

I don't care if you care or not. So what if a shark gobbles him up?

It was a bad analogy perhaps but I'm just trying to point out that everyone has a right to be concerned with those who are unable to have a voice that is all.

I don't see anyone speaking up to save the dust mites. They're a form of life, and they're just as useful as a fetus.

You don't accidentally step on a fetus and crush it to death.

So? They're still life, and what I hear constantly from pro-lifers is "how valuable life is."

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I think everyone here is missing the real point here. The real question is, is the mother HOT? Because obviously if she is ugly she's needs to get rid of it. If she's hot, she needs to keep it. We don't need anymore ugly people in this world.

This is a wise man

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: DanJ
So of the pro-life people here. Do you also think we should have universal health-care so that *after* these babies are born to parents who can't afford to support them and get them proper health care, can live at least lives without fear of health issues?

I find a lot of people who are pro-life are against any sort of universal health care; somewhat implying that they only care about the child when its unborn...

hah no kidding. freakin hipocrites, all of them. pro lifers? hell no, they are just pro birthers.

No, because there is no combination of living cells that self replicates.

that alone means nothing. its sacred because its a special cell? just remember, 80% of conceptions are naturally aborted. god is your greatest abortionist. all those souls lost. i guess thats the value the creator placed on this sacred fertilized egg in the first place'


people should just mind their own business. its not your decision to make.

To take things further, a fetus is a human being and as such has all the same rights that you and I have.

that is just an opinion. in actual fact a fetus is just a human fetus.

and frankly, for those strangly inconsitent pro lifers. if you truely believe that a fetus is a full human being, even cases of rape, incest, or to even save the life of the mother should not be allowed. these "exceptions" some pro lifers accept to not seem so extremist just show how they realy do value the life of a fetus. not to mention how many pro lifers(bush) are so pro death penalty its disgusting. real undeniable human beings

So? They're still life, and what I hear constantly from pro-lifers is "how valuable life is."

yes, the life is sacred when its like me people all other life? feh... care not.

 

[Jzero]

My opinion of you is that P&amp;N is :thumbsdown: <---one forum that way.

 

[kermalou]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
I am pro choice

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Ok, damnit. I am not pro-death. I'm just saying, if the law allows it, people can make their own choices. Whether it's a smart choice or a dumb choice, it's their choice. If a woman has a baby, kills it and throws it in a dumpster it is murder. They can suffer the consequences of that. If she does not think she can support the baby and chooses to get an abortion, that's her choice and it's not illegal (yet anyway).

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
Ok, damnit. I am not pro-death. I'm just saying, if the law allows it, people can make their own choices. Whether it's a smart choice or a dumb choice, it's their choice. If a woman has a baby, kills it and throws it in a dumpster it is murder. They can suffer the consequences of that. If she does not think she can support the baby and chooses to get an abortion, that's her choice and it's not illegal (yet anyway).

Interesting point of view. I might actually agree if we fully inform the women of the consequences she will suffer if she goes through with it instead of pumping these often abused and manipulated women through the money mill.

The reason that many are pro-choice is that the industry is totally unregulated and makes Billions each year. I'm told that the doctors and nurses that perform these procedures don't sleep well.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
Ok, damnit. I am not pro-death. I'm just saying, if the law allows it, people can make their own choices. Whether it's a smart choice or a dumb choice, it's their choice. If a woman has a baby, kills it and throws it in a dumpster it is murder. They can suffer the consequences of that. If she does not think she can support the baby and chooses to get an abortion, that's her choice and it's not illegal (yet anyway).

Interesting point of view. I might actually agree if we fully inform the women of the consequences she will suffer if she goes through with it instead of pumping these often abused and manipulated women through the money mill.

The reason that many are pro-choice is that the industry is totally unregulated and makes Billions each year. I'm told that the doctors and nurses that perform these procedures don't sleep well.

Well they are probably a little nervous with the extreme pro-lifers using scoped rifles and bombs on them...

 

[0roo0roo]

Interesting point of view. I might actually agree if we fully inform the women of the consequences she will suffer if she goes through with it instead of pumping these often abused and manipulated women through the money mill.

The reason that many are pro-choice is that the industry is totally unregulated and makes Billions each year. I'm told that the doctors and nurses that perform these procedures don't sleep well.

your told this by who? pro birth fanatics? same ones that claim that all women are mentally fragile and scarred by this? oh wait.. u mentioned u even think the fathers mind is that fragile

next time, don't listen to people with tinfoil hats. clinics aren't awash in money, that defies reason.

 

[Kadarin]

I am also pro choice. In this case, I'd support her right to choose to abort the child, because otherwise there's one more unwanted child brought into the world.

What is it with people who believe that women who have sex must be saddled with unwanted children as "punishment" for their "sinful actions"?

 

[0roo0roo]

What is it with people who believe that women who have sex must be saddled with unwanted children as "punishment" for their "sinful actions"?

The Idea of Righteousness

The third psychological impulse which is embodied in religion is that which has led to the conception of righteousness. I am aware that many freethinkers treat this conception with great respect and hold that it should be preserved in spite of the decay of dogmatic religion. I cannot agree with them on this point. The psychological analysis of the idea of righteousness seems to me to show that it is rooted in undesirable passions and ought not to be strengthened by the imprimatur of reason. Righteousness and unrighteousness must be taken together; it is impossible to stress the one without stressing the other also. Now, what is "unrighteousness" in practise? It is in practise behaviour of a kind disliked by the herd. By calling it unrighteousness, and by arranging an elaborate system of ethics around this conception, the herd justifies itself in wreaking punishment upon the objects of its own dislike, while at the same time, since the herd is righteous by definition, it enhances its own self-esteem at the very moment when it lets loose its impulse to cruelty. This is the psychology of lynching, and of the other ways in which criminals are punished. The essence of the conception of righteousness, therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by cloaking cruelty as justice.

But, it will be said, the account you have been giving of righteousness is wholly inapplicable to the Hebrew prophets, who, after all, on your own showing, invented the idea. There is truth in this: righteousness in the mouths of the Hebrew prophets meant what was approved by them and Yahweh. One finds the same attitude expressed in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Apostles began a pronouncement with the words "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us" (Acts xv, 28). This kind of individual certainty as to God's tastes and opinions cannot, however, be made the basis of any institution. That has always been the difficulty with which Protestantism has had to contend: a new prophet could maintain that his revelation was more authentic than those of his predecessors, and there was nothing in the general outlook of Protestantism to show that this claim was invalid. Consequently Protestantism split into innumerable sects, which weakened one another; and there is reason to suppose that a hundred years hence Catholicism will be the only effective representation of the Christian faith. In the Catholic Church inspiration such as the prophets enjoyed has its place; but it is recognized that phenomena which look rather like genuine divine inspiration may be inspired by the Devil, and it is the business of the church to discriminate, just as it is the business of the art connoisseur to know a genuine Leonardo from a forgery. In this way revelation becomes institutionalized at the same time. Righteousness is what the church approves, and unrighteousness is what it disapproves. Thus the effective part of the conception of righteousness is a justification of herd antipathy.

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one may say, is to give an air of respectability to these passions, provided they run in certain channels. It is because these passions make, on the whole, for human misery that religion is a force for evil, since it permits men to indulge these passions without restraint, where but for its sanction they might, at least to a certain degree, control them.

I can imagine at this point an objection, not likely to be urged perhaps by most orthodox believers but nevertheless worthy to be examined. Hatred and fear, it may be said, are essential human characteristics; mankind always has felt them and always will. The best that you can do with them, I may be told, is to direct them into certain channels in which they are less harmful than they would be in certain other channels. A Christian theologian might say that their treatment by the church in analogous to its treatment of the sex impulse, which it deplores. It attempts to render concupiscence innocuous by confining it within the bounds of matrimony. So, it may be said, if mankind must inevitably feel hatred, it is better to direct this hatred against those who are really harmful, and this is precisely what the church does by its conception of righteousness.

To this contention there are two replies - one comparatively superficial; the other going to the root of the matter. The superficial reply is that the church's conception of righteousness is not the best possible; the fundamental reply is that hatred and fear can, with our present psychological knowledge and our present industrial technique, be eliminated altogether from human life.

To take the first point first. The church's conception of righteousness is socially undesirable in various ways - first and foremost in its depriciation of intelligence and science. This defect is inherited from the Gospels. Christ tells us to become as little children, but little children cannot understand the differential calculus, or the principles of currency, or the modern methods of combating disease. To acquire such knowledge is no part of our duty, according to the church. The church no longer contends that knowledge is in itself sinful, though it did so in its palmy days; but the acquisition of knowledge, even though not sinful, is dangerous, since it may lead to a pride of intellect, and hence to a questioning of the Christian dogma. Take, for example, two men, one of whom has stamped out yellow fever throughout some large region in the tropics but has in the course of his labors had occasional relations with women to whom he was not married; while the other has been lazy and shiftless, begetting a child a year until his wife died of exhaustion and taking so little care of his children that half of them died from preventable causes, but never indulging in illicit sexual intercourse. Every good Christian must maintain that the second of these men is more virtuous than the first. Such an attitude is, of course, superstitious and totally contrary to reason. Yet something of this absurdity is inevitable so long as avoidance of sin is thought more important than positive merit, and so long as the importance of knowledge as a help to a useful life is not recognized.

The second and more fundamental objection to the utilization of fear and hatred practised by the church is that these emotions can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. The educational reforms must be the basis, since men who feel hatred and fear will also admire these emotions and wish to perpetuate them, although this admiration and wish will probably be unconscious, as it is in the ordinary Christian. An education designed to eliminate fear is by no means difficult to create. It is only necessary to treat a child with kindness, to put him in an environment where initiative is possible without disastrous results, and to save him from contact with adults who have irrational terrors, whether of the dark, of mice, or of social revolution. A child must also not be subject to severe punishment, or to threats, or to grave and excessive reproof. To save a child from hatred is a somewhat more elaborate business. Situations arousing jealousy must be very carefully avoided by means of scrupulous and exact justice as between different children. A child must feel himself the object of warm affection on the part of some at least of the adults with whom he has to do, and he must not be thwarted in his natural activities and curiosities except when danger to life or health is concerned. In particular, there must be no taboo on sex knowledge, or on conversation about matters which conventional people consider improper. If these simple precepts are observed from the start, the child will be fearless and friendly.

On entering adult life, however, a young person so educated will find himself or herself plunged into a world full of injustice, full of cruelty, full of preventable misery. The injustice, the cruelty, and the misery that exist in the modern world are an inheritance from the past, and their ultimate source is economic, since life-and-death competition for the means of subsistence was in former days inevitable. It is not inevitable in our age. With our present industrial technique we can, if we choose, provide a tolerable subsistence for everybody. We could also secure that the world's population should be stationary if we were not prevented by the political influence of churches which prefer war, pestilence, and famine to contraception. The knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion. Bertrand Russell
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/has_reli.htm

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

holy hell cliffnotes PLEASE

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
holy hell cliffnotes PLEASE

"It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."

 

[Gurck]

Ahh mein eyes!! The link is much better, a few sentences in italics is one thing but that novel > me

 

[eigen]

I liked the link. Russell > Religon any day of the week.

 

[TitanDiddly]

I'm Pro-Life. Abortion should only be considered in medically extreme cases, such as the death or lifetime suffering(hard to define- some would say having a child is a lifetime of suffering) of both the mother and child.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I am also pro choice. In this case, I'd support her right to choose to abort the child, because otherwise there's one more unwanted child brought into the world.

What is it with people who believe that women who have sex must be saddled with unwanted children as "punishment" for their "sinful actions"?

they chose to have sex, full aware of its potentiality. now that potentiality has become an actuality (the child), and that actuality (the child) must be respected and defended. life > convenience

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I am also pro choice. In this case, I'd support her right to choose to abort the child, because otherwise there's one more unwanted child brought into the world.

What is it with people who believe that women who have sex must be saddled with unwanted children as "punishment" for their "sinful actions"?

they chose to have sex, full aware of its potentiality. now that potentiality has become an actuality (the child), and that actuality (the child) must be respected and defended. life > convenience

Sez you. And I'll bet you're probably just like all the rest of the hypocrites and actually mean "human life > convenience"
[edit]
So, because YOU believe a handful of cells constitutes a person, SOMEONE ELSE has to be saddled with an unwanted child? Awful convenient for you when it's not you in the situation.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I am also pro choice. In this case, I'd support her right to choose to abort the child, because otherwise there's one more unwanted child brought into the world.

What is it with people who believe that women who have sex must be saddled with unwanted children as "punishment" for their "sinful actions"?

they chose to have sex, full aware of its potentiality. now that potentiality has become an actuality (the child), and that actuality (the child) must be respected and defended. life > convenience

Sez you. And I'll bet you're probably just like all the rest of the hypocrites and actually mean "human life > convenience"

Probably more like "newborn human baby life > convenience"

 

[KarenMarie]

I don't buy into the 'you knew the consequences when you decided to have sex, so oyu are stuck" argument.

I got pregnant on the pill. there are millions of women that get pregnant while on birth control of some sort.

I don't think that abortion should be illegal. I dont think that anyone should ever have the right to force a woman to carry to term. I would like to offer another point for debate/consideration.

Recently in the news, was a woman who was advised that she needed an emergency C-Section or her baby would die. When she did not have the C-Section, they wanted to charge her with murder. That, to me, is a slippery slope...one with horrifying consequences for women. What's next? the pregnancy police? You smoked, or drank wine or didnt eat right, so we will charge you with... well, anything from murder if the child dies, to wreckless endangerment if the child lives. That is not not not a place we want to be.

However, I will say it again (see my previous posts)... abortions are too easy to get. They are given to too many young girls without parental/guardian consent or knowledge. The stigma on aborting a baby is gone, and millions of women use abortion as a form of birth control. that is wrong on so many levels.

I think they should not be so easy to get. I think a period of counseling should be manditory before an abortion. I think parents need to be more involved in their kids lives. I think no one under the age of 18 should be allowed an abortion without a parent/guardian present or at least aware.

I think paritial birth abortions should be banned unless the mother's life is in immediate danger.

One more thing... I have read, over and over again, in this thread the term... unwanted baby. The baby might not be wanted by the parents, but chances are someone would want it.. the grandparents, adoptive parents, etc. This should be an option explained to woman who want to abort.

But women should never be forced to carry to term by anyone else.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Sez you. And I'll bet you're probably just like all the rest of the hypocrites and actually mean "human life > convenience"

so tell me, what do i mean by "life" then? there's nothing wrong with convenience. it becomes wrong once we start killing off people because we don't want to deal with them.

 

[Cattlegod]

you should be able to abort a child until memory starts. i.e. i don't remember anything before ~2-3 years old, we should be able to abort children until they are about 2 years old.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
you should be able to abort a child until memory starts. i.e. i don't remember anything before ~2-3 years old, we should be able to abort children until they are about 2 years old.

the earliest i remember was when i was 5..... does that mean i should be able to be killed before then?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
you should be able to abort a child until memory starts. i.e. i don't remember anything before ~2-3 years old, we should be able to abort children until they are about 2 years old.

the earliest i remember was when i was 5..... does that mean i should be able to be killed before then?

People in general, or you specifically?