wow, another example of just how divided (and sacastically indignant) this country is right now. makes me sad that otherwise intelligent people can't have a dicussion on an issue without resorting to low blows and mudslinging.
My own view: I don't really know enough. I'm not female. If I were I'd probably be highly uneasy about someone else (government or otherwise) making a decision like that for me. I tend to support adoption if possible, but also think that if abortion gets banned, alot of women will be scared enough to seek out dangerous alternatives. There's alot of blurry lines (partial birth, morning after pills, etc) that makes saying "I'm pro life" or "I'm pro choice" pretty difficult.
am I the only one who doesn't see this as black and white?
edit: grammatical
My own view: I don't really know enough. I'm not female. If I were I'd probably be highly uneasy about someone else (government or otherwise) making a decision like that for me. I tend to support adoption if possible, but also think that if abortion gets banned, alot of women will be scared enough to seek out dangerous alternatives. There's alot of blurry lines (partial birth, morning after pills, etc) that makes saying "I'm pro life" or "I'm pro choice" pretty difficult.
am I the only one who doesn't see this as black and white?
edit: grammatical
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Abortion should be legal - it is up to the individual (and/or their religious institution) on whether or not to have an abortion. Just because its legal, doesn't mean that they should do it.
It isn't a good idea to not brush your teeth. We don't need to have a law against it though - its up to the people.
Edit, Afterthought:
Think long-term on what's good for humanity. By allowing females to avoid having a kid, it reduces population growth. In our current state, less people == a Real Good Thing (TM).
Edit, Second afterthought:
The advances of science are challenging notions of what qualifies a person.
At a cellular level, when does a fertilized egg, attached to and part of the mother, become a separate identity from the mother? I can see and argue both conception and birth.
It isn't a good idea to not brush your teeth. We don't need to have a law against it though - its up to the people.
Edit, Afterthought:
Think long-term on what's good for humanity. By allowing females to avoid having a kid, it reduces population growth. In our current state, less people == a Real Good Thing (TM).
Edit, Second afterthought:
The advances of science are challenging notions of what qualifies a person.
At a cellular level, when does a fertilized egg, attached to and part of the mother, become a separate identity from the mother? I can see and argue both conception and birth.
It's not legal to kill a baby. It's legal to kill a few cells, same as when you scratch your ass. By posting this instead of having sex - regardless of consentuality - you've just ruined the potential of what could have been. There could be another child in this world if not for you, my friend. You could have been reproducing, but instead you are no better than a murderer. Rape is fine in the face of that.
:roll:
I don't buy the fact that, while sperm = not life, and egg = not life, sperm+egg = life automatically. if you're pregnant for a week, do you baptize the baby in the womb? do you have a closed-casket funeral if you miscarry?
when some of the greatest philosphical minds of all time haven't been able to decide on an answer when it comes to what constitutes a life, I don't think that a bunch of politicians should be given the right to decide that. it should be questioned and debated, and it's up to each individual person to decide for themselves, but ultimately, it should be a choice. if you're pro-life, that's fine. don't have an abortion.
when some of the greatest philosphical minds of all time haven't been able to decide on an answer when it comes to what constitutes a life, I don't think that a bunch of politicians should be given the right to decide that. it should be questioned and debated, and it's up to each individual person to decide for themselves, but ultimately, it should be a choice. if you're pro-life, that's fine. don't have an abortion.
i'm very prodeath, i think it should be the mother's decision no matter what the circumstances are.
This world is crowded enough, why add excess population... (note: this is not a valid point in the argument)
Besides, bringing a child into a home that doesn't want it, is not in the best interests of the child. Just like putting a child into foster care or up for adoption.
Kill it or keep it...(note: again not really valid, except for the "it" part cause in my view at the time when most people consider abortion "it" is still an "it")
Regardless, her flesh, her blood, her decision...
However, I wouldn't be suprised if it was illegal seeing how suicide is illegal.
This world is crowded enough, why add excess population... (note: this is not a valid point in the argument)
Besides, bringing a child into a home that doesn't want it, is not in the best interests of the child. Just like putting a child into foster care or up for adoption.
Kill it or keep it...(note: again not really valid, except for the "it" part cause in my view at the time when most people consider abortion "it" is still an "it")
Regardless, her flesh, her blood, her decision...
However, I wouldn't be suprised if it was illegal seeing how suicide is illegal.
Yes I'm the ignorant one. :roll:
I'm not the one arguing that this is just a few cells and is no different than scratching your ass. 42% of abortions are performed after the eighth week.
Yes, I agree that you are the ignorant one. Hey, you said it, not me!
Now that that's out of the way... By arguing this you're killing the chance for infinite human beings. You could be a) having sex with a woman or b) researching ways to make sure every egg produced by every woman on earth becomes fertilized by a sperm cell, and ways to increase the number of eggs, since men produce far more sperm than women produce eggs. By, instead, arguing about it on an internet forum - there are many potential children who will never come to be. What do you have to say about that, murderer? Hey, I'm just using your own logic here.By the way, if you're only against 42% of abortions, you should make that clear.
Originally posted by: Gurck
Yes, I agree that you are the ignorant one. Hey, you said it, not me!
By the way, if you're only against 42% of abortions, you should make that clear.
Maybe I should rephrase. Seriously Gurck all bullsh!t aside. When do you consider it to be more than a few cells? When there is a beating heart. Nearly all abortions occur after that as it occurs in the third week. It is almost impossible to catch a pregnancy and make an informed decision on what to do about it before it becomes more than a couple of cells.
Adoption seems to be a forgotten alternative. People here have stated that there are plenty of kids that are waiting to be adopted. While this is true almost none of them are newborns. There are far more people willing to adopt a newborn at any given time than there are abortions performed. Is it selfish of them to want a newborn instead of wanting to adopt a 5 or six year old? Yes but I can understand the reasoning. The fact is you will find very few newborns that don't get adopted. So the argument that you would just be putting a bunch of babies into the system that would stay there for 18 years and then be dumped on society is invalid.
You are not using my logic in your arguement. I am saying that once conception happens abortion should not be an alternative. I actually know quite a few people who have had abortions and from my experience did it for selfish reasons . Why do that when adoption is a viable option? I'll give you some reasons I've heard. "It will ruin my figure", "I might become attatched to it", "I would be embarrased with people knowing I gave my baby away". Would these people have made good parents? Who knows? But adoption was an alternative.
For those who say adoption isn't that easy you are wrong. A long time friend of my wife got pregnant. She contacted an adoption agency and within weeks they had found prospecive adopters. These people paid for her expenses that were related to the pregnancy. When it was time for her to deliver they flew her to their town and she delivered the baby. Quite simple actually.
There are people saying that these people are being more responsible. Bullsh!t. Obligations result in a person being responsible. These people are only prolonging the period in which they can be irresponsible. Newsflash! Most pregnancies are not planned. Most people are not financially or otherwise stable enough when pregnancies happen. Parents become stable in the best interest of their children. I am a perfect example of this and so were my parents. As were most of the parents of people on this forum no matter what there parents told them.
Semantics, the only thing that qualifies it as a human being any more than sperm and eggs qualify as human beings is the emotional attachment some parents may feel - in which case they're free not to abort and to either raise the baby or give it up for adoption.
Nine months of a woman's life, often in a situation where it will interfere with education, hence, her entire life, is a big sacrifice to make for rape, defective birth control, or a moment's minor mistake. If males were the ones who got pregnant the rate of unwanted pregnancies would rise by approximately 1,000,000 times. Any guy knows what I'm talking about
It's easy though, for sexists who don't have to go through with the punishment, especially holier-than-thou religious types, to condemn a woman's entire life for a momentary lapse of reason or worse, rape or defective birth control.I'm glad your friend had a good experience with adoption, but it means nothing. Anecdotal information is the first sign of a collapsing argument. I was in a bad car accident a few years back and came out unscathed, does that mean that all bad car accidents, or even most, are safe for the occupants?
I'd be interested in knowing statistics in concern to adoption; what adoptees earn in comparison to a control group, what they (or their insurance) spend on mental health care, what the rate of pregnancy at a young age is for adoptees, etc. I'd guess that for all things, they'd be in between "normal" people (control group) and women/parents who give a child up for adoption. That, if true, is the expression of genetic code; something far too many people give far too little credit. Feel free to consider the implications of that on your own, I feel it's outside the scope of this thread.
Not to mention the toll it takes on a woman's body.
The way I see it you have no logic. What's the difference between a fetus being aborted and an egg going unfertilized, regardless of whether it's due to contraception, abstinence, or the woman not ovulating at the time? My answer is nothing; both situations lead to a person not coming into existence. It's fine by my logic, but by yours, in addition to aborted fetuses (fetii?), all eggs passing unfertilized in menstruation are the equivalent of murder, as is all sperm wasted in masturbation, contraception, oral/anal sex, and even when only one sperm cell (of millions) fertilizes an egg; the rest die... or, are murdered
This is the most amusing and glaringly wrong of all your quotes. If it were true, there'd be no hungry, neglected, or abused children in the world.
I honestly think the religious right won't be happy until all "heathens" literally kiss their feet, live in servitude to them, and are constantly in awe of and jealosy over their greatness at being 'god's chosen' to go to heaven. This will never happen, obviously, and so they'll never find the happiness their beloved religion promises them
If not abortion it'd be any one of a million & one other issues.My sister got pregnant a year ago. She is unmarried and dating some guy she likes but doesnt love. They work pretty well together. After she decided to keep the baby I am total anti abortion unless it is an extreme case such as rape. Man, the little boy is so cute and I just dont understand how people can kill them no matter what the inconvenience. My hats off to all women who kept the kid when it would cause them great pain and trouble to do so. I admire you so much and you should be very proud of yourself. I dont care, abortions are murders, that kid has rights too.
fredtam, I think you should be trying to encourage people to take the "alternative" and go through with the pregnancy so they can let their child be adopted. You're instead trying to make that the only option, not an alternative. Pregnancy is very taxing on a woman's body, in more ways than just the superficial stretch marks etc. What's the earliest a baby can be born, pre-mature, and still have a chance at living? Perhaps make that the cut-off point to abortion. If it's not going to live anyway, and the mother doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy, I think it should be her legal right to "chose". Having a choice is the best option. The best solution to avoiding abortions, is to sell the alternative to make it the more attractive option, not to take away choice altogether.
editted for grammar
editted for grammar
women are going to have abortions no matter what the law says. I'd rather my wife or daughter have the option of having the operation done by a doctor in a clean, sterile hospital, rather than in a back-alley by some guy with a hanger.
One other thing to think about. If a young woman that sleeps around without protection is a partier (I'm gonna assume most young promiscuous women are), who likes to smoke, drink, get stoned on the weekends etc. If she was to get pregnant, and wasn't allowed to have an abortion, but didn't care about the baby. She's liable to continue her smoking, drinking, and getting high, undoubtedly exposing her unborn child to a much higher risk for birth defects, etc. In this case, the swift aborting of the fetus might be a better solution than putting it through 40 weeks of chemical abuse of all different types. Just an example of where abortion "might" be a better option.
And not to antagonize those with religious foundations behind their pro-life stance. But in the case of adoption as opposed to abortion, giving away your child to parents that for "other reasons" cannot have children of their own. Did you guys ever think that these "other reasons" were perhaps God's plan, and that they're not meant to have children of their own? If God planned for 2 people to be together, would he make one or both of them infertile if his plan was for them to reproduce? I don't believe this to be true, but it sounds believable from a religious standpoint. I think in the end, no matter what happens, they'll give credit to God why a situation turned out the way they wanted. IE they chose to adopt, perhaps countering God's plan, but they'll still give him credit for this miracle they've now been "blessed" with.
Semantics? What is the difference between me killing you now and you not coming into existance because your daddy used a condom? What is the difference between you and some swallowed semen or a menstruated egg?
hmmmm.. The wife made it through school pregnant and later with child. Maybe that is because she is resposible.
Oh and for the record I am not the least bit religous.
Again I am not religous at all but your point (yes I know you don't believe it) is silly. He (God) may have had those infertile people meet and want to adopt so that a child would be better off. That is more in line with a compassionate God.
That would be great except there is no denying we are an "easy way out" society. Couple this with the initial fear and uncertainty of pregnancy along with a limited amount of time to make the choice and which do you think people will choose?
Beyond getting pregnant through being raped, a woman has consented that her actions can lead to pregnancy. Saying "I made a moments mistake" or "It's not my fault cause I was taking the pill" is not a valid excuse to terminate a life. It's not a valid excuse to terminate a life because of inconvenience brought on by yourself. This would still hold true if it were males were the ones to conceive.
I'm not sure if this response was serious or not, but there is a huge difference between a fetus and a reproductive cell. Have you not taken intro biology in university or even high school? A sperm and an egg by itself are just 1N reproductive cells. They die just like every other cell in your body. There is no difference between scratching your skin or blowing your load or having your period. When a sperm fuses with an egg, it forms a zygote. A zygote is a 2N cell containing half of the mothers DNA and half of the fathers DNA. The zygote (which becomes the fetus) is a human being in its earliest stage. There is no logical argument against this.
It's really sunk to a new level when a baby (potential one)
is compared to a few cells on someone's rearend.
Gurck,
Do you really believe a few cells (what there is after a sperm and egg do their thing) and
the skin cells on your rear end are the same thing?
Is there no difference?
Legendary
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 7,019
- 1
- 0
The difference lies in specialization - prenatal cells are not specialized (until later on, of course) aka this is where the whole stem cell idea comes from - stem cells can become any (maybe not all, but most) types of human cells. So eventually, one of the cells of a fetus will become the skin on your ass. Poor bastard cells
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter